Sovereignty and Counterterrorism

Abstract

Chapter Three examines state sovereignty in the context of global terrorism. In the interest of international peace and security, states now have the responsibility to the international community to uphold certain standards of internal behavior in the realm of counterterrorism. As demonstrated by the military intervention in Afghanistan shortly after the resolution, states that fail to comply risk the possibility of external interference, and at its most extreme, foreign military intervention. . . . This chapter investigates how the rights and obligations of states have changed (or not) in this regard by focusing on leading states that intervened militarily in Afghanistan, the United States and the United Kingdom), and then contrasting them with two major powers that did not intervene, China and Russia. In sum, the chapter finds support for its expectations. First, the extent to which a contingent norm of sovereignty is accepted by a state depends, at least in part, on the process and outcome of the military intervention for the intervener. Second, leading states that are not directly involved in the military intervention will moderately change their views towards contingent sovereignty, as the cases of Russia and China demonstrated, due to their non-culpability and self-interest in this issue area. What seems to be clear for all states examined is the impact of an event like 9/11 to jump-start conditions for change, but for an action such as military intervention that provides the actual mechanism of change in conceptions of sovereignty. . .