Citation

Hovell D, Hughes M. LSE Public Policy Rev. 2022; 2(3): 4.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, LSE Press)

DOI

10.31389/lseppr.53

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The question as to whether Operation Enduring Freedom was justified under international law may seem one that has passed its practical use-by date. Yet, as may be disturbingly apparent from current global conflicts, justifications relied on by certain states in the past can influence their credible use by other states in the future and diminish opportunities to refute them. In this essay, the authors examine the international legal arguments used by the United States and its allies to justify the intervention in Afghanistan. They look at the impact these justifications had on the authority, purpose and expectations of Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as on relevant frameworks for cooperation and acceptable limits of collateral damage. The authors also look at the impact these justifications have had on interpretations of the law of self-defence in modern conflict more broadly.

Language: en

Keywords

Afghanistan; Armed Conflict; International Law; Self-Defence