Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T08:39:43.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Thoughts on “Preliminary Thoughts” on Terrorism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Jordan J. Paust
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Correspondence
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , July 1974 , pp. 502 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See 68 AJIL 69 (1974).

2 See UN Doc. A/AC. 160/2, at 6–9 (1973).

3 See UN Doc. A/C.6/418, at 6 (1972).

4 See, e.g., Paust, J., Terrorism and the International Law of War, 64 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1974)Google Scholar, to be reprinted at 13 Revue de Droit Pénal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre (1974) and in a forthcoming book (Bassiouni, M. C. ed.)Google Scholar; Paust, J., Possible Legal Responses to International Terrorism: Prevention, Punishment and Cooperative Action, forthcomingGoogle Scholar; Symposium, International Terrorism—Mid East, forthcoming Akron L. Rev. (1974) (panelists: Baxter, R., Bassiouni, M. C. Rosenbaum, A., Paust, J.)Google Scholar; Proceedings, Abidjan World Conference on World Peace Through Law (Africa 1973) (Paust, J., panelist, panel on international terrorism), forthcomingGoogle Scholar; and Walter, E. V., Terror and Resistance 5 (1969)Google Scholar, cited by the authors.

5 See supra note 4.

6 See supra note 4.

7 Realism to the authors appears to be merely the quest for consensus among state elites and not a quest to explore a broader context for a more rational, realistic serving of legal policy. See supra note 1 at 72, 82, 89–90; cf. id., at 88. For a concise disclosure of the absurdity of an attempt to sweep “motive” under the rug, see A. Sewell, remarks, Phoc. Amer. Soc. Int. L., 67 AJIL 107–08 (Nov. 1973).

8 Moreover, why is it appropriate to use a “list theory” in connection with terrorism, but inappropriate to use one in connection with questions of aggression? See also McDougal, M., Feliciano, F., Law and Minimum World Public Order (1961)Google Scholar.