This article aims to assess the international legal perspectives of U.S. counterterrorism measures and policies, as well as the limitations and implications associated with them. The second part begins by examining the difficult relationship that legal and political complexities have imposed on the ability of the United Nations to combat terrorism and the difficult question of defining terrorism. In the context of this section, the article also discusses the two dominant paradigms of counterterrorism: law enforcement and conflict management. The third part deals with the assessment of the law enforcement paradigm that treats terrorism as a crime involving national law enforcement agencies. This section deals with the “extradition or prosecution mechanism”, which is at the heart of multilateral counter-terrorism conventions, and the foundations of international criminal justice, which provide a framework for national counter-terrorism laws. It concludes with an analysis of the practice of arresting terrorists on the international stage, of which the United States has been a major proponent, and offers a discussion of the complex laws associated with this controversial tool. In Part IV, the article discusses the complexities and technical details of the conflict management paradigm. First, it examines the international legal uncertainties inherent in the treatment of terrorists as combatants. The analysis goes further in the use of both limited lethal force in the form of targeted killings and large-scale military force in the form of pre-emptive strikes and reprisals. To mark the transition from the Cold War era to the post-Cold War era, the section focuses on American practice and the world`s response before and after the Cold War. The section concludes with a review of the scenario after September 11 and assesses whether there will be significant changes in state legislation or practice as a result of the military campaigns in Afghanistan (“Operation Enduring Freedom”) and Iraq (“Operation Enduring Freedom”). The different diplomatic approaches of Nigeria and South Africa to recognize the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) as Africa`s most important geostrategic powers have proven to be an interesting political dynamic in the study of contemporary African diplomacy.
With the adoption of the United Nations Security Council Resolution (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973) establishing a no-fly zone to protect civilians, Nigeria and twenty-two African countries supported international multilateral efforts to recognize the NTC, while South Africa and thirty (30) African countries acted unilaterally by failing to do so. My aim is to provide theoretical, empirical and complementary evidence of Nigerian multilateral action and South Africa`s unilateral action to recognize the NTC. This third report deals with the issue of recognition of governments. (Hrsg.), The `Arab Spring`: New Patterns for Democracy and International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., 2013, S. 169-201 Ryan Liss, Oona Hathaway, Tina Thomas, Jacob Victor Copyright Information: Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1997.