Discussion Question 2: Libya recently announced that it is claiming a 200 mile zone off its coast as its territorial waters (and airspace). To stake its claim, Libya placed armed warships across the 200 mile line and warned the world that this line constitutes a “line of death” to anyone who might cross it. Customary International Law establishes that States may only claim 12 miles off their coast as territorial waters. Immediately, the Security Council adopts a resolution condemning Libya’s actions as “violating international law and constituting a threat to the peace.” The Resolution, however, stated nothing about using force against Libya. The United States, pursuant to Congressional authorization, sends armed warships and three fighter jets to patrol the 200 mile zone. The U.S. warships and Fighter Jets never came closer than 30 miles to the Libyan coast. After a Libyan ship fired at one of the fighter jets, the U.S. warships and fighter jets returned fire, destroying two Libyan ships. Did the U.S.’s actions violate the U.N. Charter? Even if the U.S. did not violate the Charter, should the United States care whether its actions violated the U.N. Charter? (At least 300 words).
Discussion Question 3: Should International Humanitarian Law (IHL) exist? That is, should everything be legal in war, or should normal human rights law (judicial procedure before execution, presumption of innocence, right to confront one’s accusers, fair trial before an impartial judge, etc.) apply during armed conflict just as in times of peace, or does IHL strike the appropriate balance between having no laws during war and strict human rights law? Second, does IHL legally apply to the United States conflict with Al Qaeda? If not, should it? (See note 6 on page 253.) (At least 300 words)