When is the use of military force justified?

As the "Artists and Writers Oppose Expanding 'War On Terrorism'" petition has garnered some attention one key question has been raised over and over again.

What does the petition mean when it states that acts of terrorism are crimes and should be dealt with by the rule of law and not by military or indiscriminate force?

Here's a typical example of the objection from a weblog called Gambles and Frolics

Ok, so let me get this straight. If another state (say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq) were to detonate a nuclear weapon in one of our cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people, the United States would NOT be justified in using military force against Iraq to retaliate or deter against future attacks?

Ironically, the principle of self-defence, which allows a country to take military action against another state's aggression, is recognized in international law and is in fact codified in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Here it is:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

So it turns out that the petitioners are actually in the imbecilic position of arguing AGAINST the use of military force in precisely one of the few situations where international law ALLOWS the use of military force.

Obviously if a state were to drop a bomb on New York City, or if there was hard proof that a state was planning to drop a bomb on New York City, then I'd advocate that the US use military force to act in self-defense. The UN Charter is quite correct. However, in the case of the attacks of September 11th there is no evidence that a state was responsible.

Article 51 in the UN charter does not justify the bombing or invasion of a country as a means to bring about the extradition of accused criminals. And beyond this legal point, when you consider how ineffective the tactic of bombing is against terrorists it's impossible to call the bombing of Afghanistan an act of self-defense.

In regards to Iraq, Article 51 of the UN Charter is just irrelevant, not even worth considering. In fact, it would seem to work against the United States.

The US has made its intention to invade and occupy Iraq quite clear. By the standards of international law, and under the UN Charter, such an invasion would justify Iraqi military action against the United States.

I would not support such actions by Iraq. Would you?

--Tim Jones and Douglas Lain

Journalist Robin Miller has written about the US claim that the war on Afghanistan was an act of self-defense.

Barrister and author of Crimes Against Humanity - the Struggle for Global Justicesuggested shortly after September 11th that the attacks should be considered crimes against humanity.

Brian J. Foley, a professor at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware wrote that the US campaign on Afghanistan was not self-defense under international law.

International law requires that acts of self defense be proportionate to the aggressor's attack. The question of whether the war on Afghanistan was proportionate can best be answered after examining the resulting escalation in starvation.