) it has also been alleged that the powerful ISI (the Pakistan army's intelligence wing) still has links with the Taliban and elements within the agency are sympathizers of Islamic extremists, who may be surreptitiously helping the Taliban. The U.S. has also been accused of carrying out attacks on alleged hideouts of militants across the Pakistan side of the border by drone and missile attacks that have caused a number of civilian deaths. This has further inflamed anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, where the majority of public opinion was never in favor of the United States, in any case. The U.S. support for Musharraf has also emboldened him to perpetuate his rule as he has recently imposed Emergency, suspended the country's constitution, dismissed an increasingly independent judiciary, and placed draconian restrictions on the media and civil liberties.
Guidelines for Foreign Intervention
While examining the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, it is pertinent to discuss whether such interference is legal according to international law and whether any guidelines for foreign intervention exist?
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, prohibits the unilateral use of force and states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." ("Chapter I: Purposes and Principles") in addition, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its ruling in "Nicaragua v USA" (1986) has clarified that a general ban on the use of force exists even in customary law running parallel to the UN charter. However, there are three exceptions to the prohibition of use of force in international law: (a) right to self-defense; (b) action authorized by the Security Council; and - action by regional bodies with Security Council authorization. (Hassan)
The United States considers that its intervention in Afghanistan was legal because it was using the right of self-defense against the 9/11 terrorist attacks; it had received authorization for the assault and the military action against Afghanistan was taken by a regional body (i.e., NATO).
Let us take up the question, whether the UN Security Council had allowed the U.S. To invade Afghanistan? There is no doubt that the Council did pass Resolution 1368 on the U.S. claim of self-defense, and recognized in its preamble the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter. However, the operative part of the resolution did not specifically authorize the use of force and instead attempted to maintain peace and security by diplomatic means. ("Resolution 1368"; Hassan) crucial point to consider, while discussing the legality of the U.S. action in Afghanistan is: whether the Taliban government had sent the 9/11 terrorists to carry out the attacks? Obviously, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the Afghan government was directly involved. There is no doubt that the Taliban had close relations with Osama bin Laden; had provided him sanctuary in the country, and had turned a blind eye to his activities, including the setting up of terrorist training camps on its territory. However, the impoverished Taliban were in no position to direct the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda or even...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now