Jus ad bellum and American Targeted Use of Force to Fight Terrorism Around the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years the USA has conducted hundreds of targeted operations against alleged terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, and the article analyses if the operations comply with jus ad bellum. The first part of the article summarizes the status of the relevant legal principles and concludes that the right to self-defence has undergone substantial changes since the attacks on 9/11. The second part analyses if the American operations comply with the legal framework just presented and conclude that the majority of the operations appear to be based on local consent and therefore comply with the jus ad bellum. The operations may also be lawful if they comply with a right to self-defence, but it is submitted that the attacks on 11 September 2001 can no longer serve as a basis for an American right to self-defence. To justify its operations as self-defence, the USA must therefore point to other armed attacks. It must also show that the local authorities are unwilling or unable to stop the attacks from their territories. It is concluded that the attacks on American personnel in Afghanistan by groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan constitute an armed attack on the USA, and that the Americans were also the victim of a 2010 armed attack from AQAP in Yemen. The USA has not, however, suffered an armed attack from the hands of al Shabaab in Somalia or from anyone in Libya that can justify the capture of a Libyan citizen in October 2013.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".