International Law On Anti-terrorism Two Jurisprudence Path Of The Comparative Study

The "9·11" attack has brought a huge impact on the international relationship. Anti-terrorism has become an important topic in the process of globalization. Although the international community formulated lots of conventions and protocols because of focus on the regional acts of terrorism, the UN member states' proportion of accession is very low. After the "9·11" attack, more and more states joined the anti-terrorism conventions, thus in this context the international anti-terrorism law gets further advancements. The "9·11" attack also led to a brand new practice of utilizing the self-defence theory to fight against terrorism. Although the "9·11" attack has already passed for nearly ten years, the international anti-terrorism legislation is still in development and the debate on the USA 's anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan has never ceased, while the USA 's anti-terrorism war in Iraq on the excuse of anticipatory self-defence caused even greater disagreement. The author believes there exist two ways in international law to fight against terrorism: one is based on the international anti-terrorism conventions which stipulate the terrorist crime, another is based on the states' self-defence right which is provided in the UN charter. The two ideas differ from each other, while they have an interdependence relationship. The current international cooperation against terrorism is of two characteristics: firstly, the cooperation on the conviction of terrorist activities with more new violent means has been proceeding smoothly, thus the international anti-terrorism legislation has been further enriched. Secondly, some long-standing disputes remain to be solved which reflects the current situation of the international anti-terrorism law, although the international anti-terrorism law develops day by day, some controversial problems are still not solved, its inherent characteristic of lagging cannot satisfy the need of fighting against terrorism. States' exercise of self-defence would be able to maintain the rights of the plausible, while the war on terror may exceed necessary limits easily, because the international legislation or mechanism of supervision on the exercise of self-defence is missing. In order to fully explain the relationship of the two ideas, the author analyse the controversial problems and acquire the final conclusion.