英语论文网

from other state. [12] Recognizing that the war on terror is not against a specific state because it is a war against aon the terrorist group, and in addition that the September 11 attack is not considered to beas an attack from another state, so the use of force as self- defense is not legal.

In comparison When comparingbetween the rebels in theof Caroline Case [13] and the terrorists in the September 11 attack, both the rebels [14] and the terrorists fought out of their states, and attacked other state possessions. For example, the terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre buildings which meants attacking the economy of the state [15] , and the rebels [16] attacked the British ships and burned themit. Also, the rebels attacked the British military in Canada [17] , and the terrorists attacked the Defense Ministry [18] . Therefore, the anticipatory self defense can be justified in customary international law. Therefore, according to Based upon the Caroline case [19] the U.S.A attack against Afghanistan is justified and legal. In addition, the iInternational cCourt of Jjustice stated in the Nicaragua case that is illegal for a state to send irregular forces into another country [20] . Iindeed, relevant here is thein concept of the state sponsored terrorism, which is describes whered athe state givesthat support terrorists in military , diplomatic, orand financial support. Military supporting is includesing the training of the terrorists and supplying them with weapons [21] . Diplomatic support is includesing the issuing of fake passports, and helping to transport the weapons through the diplomatic pouches [22] . Financial support is includes supplyinging the supplement of food and medical treatment to terroristssm and medical treatment [23] . ForIn these reasons, it seems that since some of the terrorists came from Afghanistan and sincesent some of the terrorists who they are also considered to beas irregular combatants againstto the U.S.A, and because the Afghan government because it refused to extradite the leader of al-Qaeda to the U.S.A government, and hadit harbored and supported the al-Qaeda organization [24] that. As a result, the anticipatory self defense against Afghanistan is justified because the terrorists and rebels inin the Caroline case have a similarity of positions. Also, al-Qaeda is contributed to Afghanistan, so Afghanistan harbored al-Qaeda members and trained them in its territory and supported them by supplying food and medical treatment. [25]

In contrast, the Caroline case and the September 11 attack differ in several respectsare not similar in several reasons. First, the rebels in the Caroline case have attacked the British forces in Canada several times in the same territory [26] ;, even if the terrorists have attacked the U.S.A embassies or any property of the U.S.A, thesebut the attacks were in several places and they attacked the U.S.A in its home territory only once. Second, the Caroline rebels hadve ambitions to take the land of Canada from the British government [27] , whilebut the terrorists' attack was infor protesting against the U.S.A's foreign policies [28] . As Brian Jenkins stated, that the terrorists do not usually want kill a lot of people, however but they do want a lot of people to watch what theyterrorists have done, and to listen to what theyerrorists have said. [29] Third, the Caroline rebels' organization whas located in Canadiana territory which is belon