Legítima defesa ou represália? O uso da força no conflito armado de 2001 no Afeganistão / Self-defense or reprisal? the use of force in the armed conflict of 2001 in Afghanistan

AUTOR(ES)
DATA DE PUBLICAÇÃO

2009

RESUMO

This dissertation aims to analyze the actions led by the U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, in 2001, in response to the notorious terrorist attacks occurred on 11 September 2001 against the WTC and the Pentagon, mainly focusing on comparing all legal and political arguments which U.S. claim to qualify their military actions in the aforementioned armed conflict under the aegis of self-defense, with the legal arguments brought by the rules, practices and customs of international law and doctrine. In the first part of the work, by using the international doctrine, and documents of foreign policy, the facts involving the armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2001 are reported outlining the main events, according to a chronological order, and also addressing the UN Resolutions on such events. It will also be exposed on a brief contextualization of Afghanistans history and geopolitical situation. In the second part of work, some of the sequels produced by such facts are highlighted, which are the following: the U.S. National Security Strategy, launched in 2002, also known as the Bush Doctrine, containing its policy of preventive attacks, and also the subsequent and controversy U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which would became known as the Second Gulf War. Finally, in the third part of the work, there will be a more direct confrontation between the arguments used to legitimize the U. S. actions against Afghanistan, under the mantle of individual or collective self-defense, and therefore the counter-arguments supported by the existing international law, that will inc1ude, firstly, the historical evolution of the regulation of the use of force and the collective security system, the imperative international law that grants the legitimate exceptions for the use of force. Whereas there will be demonstrated the consistency of the artic1es 2 (4) and 51 of the UN Charter and the Resolution 3314/74 of the UN General Assembly, "Definition of Aggression" it is conc1uded that in this specific armed conflict, an essential element of self-defense is not present: an aggression attributable to a specific state (Afghanistan); and also are missing all the limitations required during self-defense exercise: the proportionality and the provisional character of the created situation in Afghanistan; lastly it is underlined the inherent risks of reducing the requirements established by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

ASSUNTO(S)

segurança nacional direito de guerra use of force conflitos internacionais military occupation terrorismo internacional international law afghanistan self-defense armed conflict direito internacional público reprisal terrorism

ACESSO AO ARTIGO

Documentos Relacionados