Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
State Responsibility for International Terrorism$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Kimberley N. Trapp

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199592999

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592999.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 23 October 2017

The prohibition of state terrorism and questions of attribution

The prohibition of state terrorism and questions of attribution

Chapter:
(p.24) 2 The prohibition of state terrorism and questions of attribution
Source:
State Responsibility for International Terrorism
Author(s):

Kimberley N. Trapp

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592999.003.0002

Chapter 2 explores the obligations to refrain from engaging in or supporting acts of international terrorism as specific instantiations of the general international law prohibitions of aggression and the use of force, and the principle of non-intervention. It further examines the secondary rules of attribution as they apply in the terrorism context (informing the analysis of which prohibition is breached), and critically engages with arguments that the rules of attribution are inadequate to meet the threat of terrorism. In particular, Chapter 2 argues that the ‘effective control’ standard for attribution adopted by the ICJ in Nicaragua was driven by the facts of the case and is ill-suited to determine State involvement in international terrorism. Chapter 2 advocates instead a context-sensitive application of Article 8 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility and further argues that the ICJ’s jurisprudence and relevant State practice do not support complicity as an emerging basis of attribution for acts of terrorism.

Keywords:   State terrorism, aggression, use of force, non-intervention, attribution, Nicaragua Case, Tadic, effective control, overall control, complicity

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .