The Behavioral Assessment of the United States of America’s Use of Force in Post 9/11

One of the most important consequences of the events of 11 September 2001 was the emergence of a new complex and dangerous security environment that led to the revival of the use of force in international relations. Following these events, the jus cogent principle of prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter faced a great threat. In responding to the events, the United States declared with concern that the principle of the non-use of force could no longer be considered efficient against the threats coming from terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Therefore, the United States presented its new national security strategy based on pre-emptive/preventive action, and with confirming it in its national security strategy documents and examining it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria challenged the UN Charter jus ad Bellum regime. By analyzing the United States of America’s official stance concerning the use of force in the Bush and Obama administrations, this article argues that the US approach to the use of force, after September 11 events, was an effort to stipulate an interpretation of the Charter jus ad Bellum regime that would grant it exceptional discretion in the use of force within a hegemonic international legal system.