By the time these lines appear it is more than possible that the “armed reply” to terrorism foreshadowed by the U.S. Administration, and the reprisals threatened by Israel, will have materialized. My object here is to examine the problem of terrorism and international response to it.
The state of international law on this question is lamentably vague and inadequate. Is there, however, a possible virtue in this vagueness? Can definitions be reasonably stretched to justify retaliatory action? If not, what improvements might be made, if any?
Comments