Security, Terrorism and International Law: A Skeptical Comment

• Author: Stephen Vasciannie
• Pages: 52-71

- 52 -

Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror

Security, Terrorism and

International Law: A Skeptical

Comment

Stephen Vasciannie

Introduction

This chapter considers a number of questions concerning international

law and national security, and seeks to cast a skeptical eye over certain

propositions gaining currency in the field of national and international

security. The international community has always had to address diverse

issues of security, and the preservation of national security constitutes one of

the core concerns of all states. But, even though these broad pronouncements

are incontrovertible, they merely hint at the complexity and areas of

uncertainty that prevail in security studies.

In the present international environment, for instance, one view gaining

prominence among Caribbean analysts is that security should be perceived

not only as a concept embracing traditional notions of military defence and

defence against physical attack. Rather, it should be accepted as encompassing

issues of social and economic significance to Caribbean states, so that

considerations such as health, the environment, and poverty alleviation should

be viewed essentially as security matters. This perspective is subjected to

skeptical treatment in the discussion which follows. At the same time, it is

suggested that the international community has no shortage of security

concerns, as that term is properly understood: with this in mind, the chapter

assesses some of the implications of the September 11 tragedy in the United

States of America; briefly reviews the legal arguments proferred to justify

the American-led intervention of Afghanistan following September 11 and

discusses some aspects of the intervention of Iraq by the United States of

America.

2

- 53 -

Security, Terrorism and International Law

Security Concerns

Analysis

Genuine security challenges for the international community are, of

course, in no short supply. September 11, 2001, stands as a major turning

point in security analysis not just because of the brutality inherent in exposing

thousands of civilians to sudden death for a cause with which they had no

important connection, but also because the need to respond to this kind of

security threat has opened up approaches and thought patterns that may be

risky in themselves. And, there are certainly other security threats with which

Caribbean people must be deeply concerned: to the extent that narco-

trafficking preserves and sharpens criminality in the region,1 and to the extent

that the desire to fight fire with fire leads to an increase in police killings,2

national security and human rights both undoubtedly remain seriously

compromised in Jamaica, if not elsewhere in the region.

Partly in the wake of September 11, the event which presumably has

crystallised today’s view that we are living in the Age of Terror, there has

been a noticeable tendency for political scientists to embrace broad conceptions

of security and national security. In fairness, this tendency preceded September

11, for it is common enough to encounter references to environmental security,

food security, and human security in the secondary literature from the 1980s

and 1990s.3 But, one suspects that September 11 has pushed the noticeable

tendency over the edge into the more distinct category of a pronounced trend.

In this pronounced trend, it is argued that a wide range of matters, not

previously regarded as security issues, should now be so regarded. Thus, in

addition to what I have already alluded to as genuine security issues, and in

addition to environmental and food security, some analysts now refer, for

instance, to health security, with HIV being described as a major threat to

Caribbean security. And, in more all-encompassing language, the United

Nations Development Programme has advocated recognition of a right to

human security which includes, inter alia, protection from ‘the threat of

disease, hunger, unemployment, crime, social conflict, political repression,

and environmental hazards’.4 As part of the security nexus, others have also

suggested items such as the need to prevent the undermining of social and

cultural identity, and ‘the ability to take actions and responsibility for

improving economic conditions’ in a given country.5

This impulse to broaden the definition of security in international relations

is not driven by linguistic concerns; neither is it value-neutral. Rather, it is