The international law governing the use of force is at a crossroads. States bound by the formal framework of laws primarily developed to control the exercise of self-defense and inter-State conflict are being challenged in the twenty-first century by a wide variety of non-State actor threats. The threats to State governance include not only radical jihadist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda but also transnational criminal organizations and crime associated with conflict-related instability. State legal advisors using traditional interpretations of the law often find themselves applyin ... More

The international law governing the use of force is at a crossroads. States bound by the formal framework of laws primarily developed to control the exercise of self-defense and inter-State conflict are being challenged in the twenty-first century by a wide variety of non-State actor threats. The threats to State governance include not only radical jihadist groups like the Islamic State and Al Qaeda but also transnational criminal organizations and crime associated with conflict-related instability. State legal advisors using traditional interpretations of the law often find themselves applying bodies of law—national self-defense, international humanitarian law, human rights law (international and domestic), international criminal law—in an exclusionary, even rigid, fashion where interpretive boundaries can become barriers to addressing contemporary security challenges. This book offers a holistic “operational law” approach focused on reconciling how the laws governing the use of force interface and overlap. Contemporary operational challenges and historic case studies (e.g., the 1976 Entebbe, 1997 Japanese Embassy, 1997 Lima, Peru, and 2000 Sierra Leone hostage rescue operations, as well as the Northern Ireland “Troubles” and armed group organization) are analyzed to establish how these insurgent, terrorist, and transnational criminal threats can be defeated. The need to engage in significant hostilities will continue. However, the State response requires the privileging of law enforcement in dealing with attacks at home and abroad. The ability to do so will represent an important indicator of success in dealing with non-State actor threats.