Terrorism and Just War Tradition

Jason Gatliff argues that some types of terrorism are permissible within a JustWar framework. When evaluating any use of force, two questions need to beaddressed: (1) was it appropriate to use force, and (2) was force usedappropriately. It is within the scope of these two questions that most of theobjections to terrorism arise. Gatliff argues that a terrorist act can meet thestandards of a Just War. Gatliff shows how these standards can be met inresponse to two objections to terrorism, that terrorists lack the authority tomake war, and that the random targeting of civilians renders terrorismunjustifiable. Gatliff approaches the first question from the perspective of aLockean theory of individual sovereignty. Gatliff shows that the authority touse force rests with governments because that authority has been grantedthem by those individuals they govern. When governments fail to use theirdelegated authority appropriately, then individuals can once again exercisetheir rights. Gatliff deals with the second question, the appropriateness ofintentionally targeting civilians, by arguing that many more members of thecivilian population are combatants than most people realize. Gatliff arguesthat anyone who is dangerous in the martial sense, where the martial senseof dangerousness is understood as having one's behavior purposely directedin support of military activities, is a combatant.