David Scheffer

Options for Pro s e c u t i n g

International Te r ro r i s t s

B r i e f l y . . .

• D u r i ng the campaign against terrorism, the United States and the int e r na t io na l

c o a l i t ion are using both armed fo rce and criminal investigative tools to exe rc i s e

t heir rig ht of self-de f e nse and, if circ u ms t a nces permit, to bring the perpetra t o r s

to justic e. The latter goal has been ins t r u me ntal in building the int e r na t io nal coalit ion against terro r i s m .

• G ro u nds for criminal pro s e c u t ion of the al Qaeda terrorist suspects inc l ude outstandi ng U.S. ind ic t me nt s, UN Security Council re s o l u t io ns, the vio l a t io ns of U.S. crimina l

laws and crimes against hu manity that occurred on September 11, 2001, and the

p o l i t ical commitme nt to criminal justice de mo ns t rated by the United States Governme nt, the United Na t io ns, and coalition go v e r n me nt s.

• T he terrorist suspects should not be gra nted prisoner of war status if appre he nde d,

a l t hough of f ic ially organized fo rces of the Taliban in Afghanistan probably would

q ualify for prisoner of war status.

• T he optio ns for pro s e c u t ion of the terrorist suspects inc l ude nine jud ic ial fo r u ms that

need not be mu t ually exc l u s i v e. The re may well be occasion to prosecute differe nt terrorist suspects in differe nt courts in differe nt jurisdic t io ns simu l t a ne o u s l y. The

o p t io ns inc l ude U.S. fede ral courts, military courts, or a military commission; fo re ig n

na t io nal courts; a UN Security Council ad hoc int e r na t io nal criminal tribunal; a UN

G e ne ral Assembly ad hoc int e r na t io nal criminal tribunal; a coalition tre a t y - b a s e d

c r i m i nal tribunal; a special Is l a m ic court; and UN-adm i n i s t e red courts in Afg h a n i s t a n .

• At least for the near future, key optio ns for pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects will be

U.S. fede ral courts—whe re so ma ny of them alre a dy have been ind icted for pre – S e ptember 11 crime s — a nd fo re ign na t io nal courts that will certainly play a key role in

t he investig a t ion and pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects. For the long term, much will

de p e nd on how ma ny terrorist suspects are appre he nded and how feasible and re a li s t ic any U.S., military, int e r na t io nal, or Is l a m ic law option for pro s e c u t ion become s.

No ne t he l e s s, discussion should comme nce on the feasibility of other optio ns in terms

of legal, political, and pra c t ical conc e r ns.

w w w. u s i p . o rg

S P E C I A L R E P O R T

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

N ovember 14, 2001

AB O U T T H E RE P O R T

O ne of the critical issues in the campaign agains t

t e r rorism is how int e r na t io nal terrorists will be pro secuted if they surre nder or are appre he nde d. This

report exa m i nes ma ny of the optio ns for pro s e c ut ion that will confro nt polic y ma ke r s. 

T he report was pre p a red by David Sche f f e r, a senio r

fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and

fo r merly U.S. ambassador at large for war crime s

issues (1997–2001). Scheffer was deeply eng a ge d

f rom 1993 to 2001 in the ne go t ia t ion and

e s t a b l i s h me nt of int e r na t io nal criminal tribunals fo r

t he fo r mer Yu go s l a v ia, Rwanda, and Sie r ra Leone, as

well as the Extra o rd i nary Chambers in Cambodia. He

also led the U.S. de l e g a t ion to UN talks on the perma ne nt Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court.

The views ex p ressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Institute of

Pe a c e, which does not advocate specific policies.

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEAC E

CO N T E N T S

I nt ro duc t io n 2

G ro u nds for Criminal Pro s e c u t io n 2

Te r rorist Suspects or 

P r i s o ners of Wa r ? 4

O p t io ns for Pro s e c u t io n 5

C o nc l u s io n1 3

Related UN Resolutio ns 1 4
• U l t i mately the jud ic ial system in Afghanistan will re q u i re major surge r y, with int e rna t io nal assistanc e, to instill the rule of law and bring to justice in a credible ma nner those al Qaeda terrorists or operatives who may not be prosecuted elsewhe re.

I n t ro d u c t i o n

A primary objective in the long campaign against terrorism that was launc hed in the

w a ke of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States is to bring the

p e r p e t rators of those crimes to justic e. Pre s ide nt George W. Bush and other U.S. of f ic ia l s

have articulated this objective repeatedly since September 11. The justice objective has

been a major premise for the int e r na t io nal coalition against terrorism, which would no t

have come toge t her as quickly and successfully as it did without the integrity of a U.S.

i nt e nt ion to bring the suspects to justice in courts of law. But U.S. of f ic ials have emphasized the possibility that suspects mig ht be killed in self-de f e nse if circ u ms t a nces so

re q u i re du r i ng the military campaign against the al Qaeda terrorist network and the Ta liban re g i me in Afghanistan. This appears to be particularly the case if suspects are located in and thus exposed to the legitimate targe t i ng of comma nd and cont rol cent e r s

p u r s ua nt to the laws and customs of war. On October 21, 2001, the chairman of the Jo i nt

C h iefs of Staff, Gene ral Ric h a rd B. My e r s, confirmed that if the prime suspect, Osama bin

L a den, were to be fo u nd, U.S. fo rces would not necessarily shoot him on sig ht. He said,

“ It de p e nds on the circ u ms t a nc e s. If it’s a de f e nsive situa t ion, then, you know bullets

will fly. But if we can capture some b o dy, then we’ll do that.” In short, du r i ng the camp a ign against terrorism the United States and the coalition are using both armed fo rc e

a nd criminal investigative tools to exe rcise their rig ht of self-de f e nse and to bring the

p e r p e t rators to justic e, if circ u ms t a nces permit.

T he number of terrorist suspects aro u nd the world, inc l ud i ng within the United States,

is large and gro w i ng. Alre a dy, 22 suspects of terrorist crimes committed against U.S. targets have been ind icted by U.S. courts and are publicly listed as the FBI’s “Most Wa nte d.” As of early November 2001, mo re than 1,000 suspects have been de t a i ned in the

United States, although only a small number of those ind i v iduals appear to be suspected of direct involveme nt with the al Qaeda network and the September 11 attacks. Muc h

may be ascertained about the reach of the al Qaeda network and its future possible targets through the investig a t ion and pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects, a prospect that will

fa de quickly if the suspects are killed in military actio ns. The long-term goal of disma nt l i ng al Qaeda and of de t e r r i ng int e r na t io nal terrorism could de p e nd greatly on what is

l e a r ned through jud ic ial processes with live suspects. A great deal about the al Qaeda

network was learned from U.S. fede ral criminal trials of terrorists who have been conv icted of prior terrorist attacks, such as the 1993 World Tra de Center bombing and the

1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. The re fo re, it is important to cons ider the optio ns

for pro s e c u t ion that will confro nt autho r i t ies as suspects are appre he nded and go v e r nme nts cons ider the pro’s and con’s of various fo r u ms for trial. This Special Report sets

forth some of those optio ns and ex p l a i ns their advant a ges and disadvant a ge s, partic ularly from the perspective of U.S. int e re s t s. 

G rounds for Criminal Pro s e c u t i o n

T he re are several legal and political gro u nds for pursuing the criminal pro s e c u t ion of certain terrorists associated with the al Qaeda network as well as any other possible suspects implicated in the September 11 attacks on the United States. 

• O s a ma bin Laden and 21 other suspects have long been ind icted by U.S. fede ral courts

for terrorist crimes occurring prior to the September 11 attacks. These ind i v idua l s

2

AB O U T T H E IN S T I T U T E

T he United States Institute of Peace is an indep e nde nt, nonpartisan fede ral ins t i t u t ion cre a t e d

by Cong ress to pro mote the pre v e nt ion, ma na geme nt, and peaceful re s o l u t ion of int e r na t io na l

c o n f l ic t s. Established in 1984, the Institute me e t s

its cong re s s io nal ma ndate through an array of

p ro g ra ms, inc l ud i ng re s e a rch gra nt s, fellowships,

p rof e s s io nal tra i n i ng pro g ra ms, confere nces and

w o r k s ho p s, library servic e s, public a t io ns, and

o t her educ a t io nal activitie s. The Institute’s Board

of Directors is appointed by the Pre s ide nt of the

United States and confirmed by the Sena t e.

BOA R D O F DI R E C TO R S

Chester A. Cro c ker ( C h a i r man), Ja mes R. Schlesinge r

P rofessor of Stra t e g ic Stud ie s, School of Fore ign Servic e,

G e o rgetown University • S eymour Martin Lipset ( V ic e

C h a i r man), Hazel Professor of Public Po l ic y, George

Mason University • Betty F. Bumpers, F o u nder and 

fo r mer Pre s ide nt, Peace Links, Wa s h i ngton, D.C. 

• Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy Dire c t o r, Phy s ic ia ns fo r

Hu man Rig ht s, Wa s h i ngton, D.C. • M a rc E. Leland, E s q . ,

P re s ide nt, Ma rc E. Leland & As s o c ia t e s, Arlington, Va. 

• M o ra L. McLean, Esq., Pre s ide nt, Afric a - A me r ica Ins t it u t e, New York, N.Y. • María Otero , P re s ide nt, AC C IO N

I nt e r na t io nal, Some r v i l l e, Ma s s. • B a r b a ra W. Snelling,

State Senator and fo r mer Lie u t e na nt Governo r, She l b u r ne,

Vt. • S h i b l ey Te l h a m i , A nwar Sadat Chair for Peace and

D e v e l o p me nt, University of Ma r y l a nd • Harriet Zimmerman,

V ice Pre s ide nt, Ame r ican Is rael Public Affairs 

C o m m i t t e e, Wa s h i ngton, D.C.

ME M B E R SE X O F F I C I O

Lorne W. Cra n e r, As s i s t a nt Secretary of State for Demo cra c y, Hu man Rig ht s, and Labor • Douglas J. Fe i t h , Unde r

S e c retary of Defense for Po l icy • Paul G. Gaffney II, V ic e

Adm i ral, U.S. Navy; Pre s ide nt, Na t io nal Defense Un i v e r -

s i t y • R i c h a rd H. Solomon, P re s ide nt, United States

I nstitute of Peace (no n v o t i ng)
3

a l re a dy are ind icted fugitives from U.S. justic e. Even though the curre nt military

o p e ra t io ns leave open the real possibility of lethal targe t i ng of some of the suspects,

t he fact re ma i ns that some of the same ind i v iduals are ind icted for prior terro r i s t

c r i mes for which they are expected to stand trial. Their de a t hs now would leave tho s e

p r ior crimes open to much speculation as to who planned or committed them. Whe n

s e v e ral prime suspects in the 1995 Khobar Towers bombing were behe a ded by Saud i

a u t ho r i t ies prior to FBI questio n i ng, the FBI was not able to obtain evide nce that

p robably would have helped solve that terrorist crime and perhaps pointed toward s

me a s u res to deter future terrorist crime s. 

• P r ior to September 11, the United Na t io ns Security Council adopted re s o l u t io ns ide nt i f y i ng Osama bin Laden and his associates as ind icted fugitives from U.S. law and,

a c t i ng under Chapter VII of the United Na t io ns Charter, dire c t i ng the Taliban autho ri t ies in Afghanistan to turn Osama bin Laden over “to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a

c o u ntry whe re he has been ind ic t e d, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re

he will be re t u r ned to such a count r y, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re

he will be arrested and effectively bro u g ht to justic e. . .” [UN Docs. S/RES/1267

(1999) and S/RES/1333 (2000)]. In two re s o l u t io ns, the Security Council called on

states to bring the perpetra t o r s, org a n i z e r s, and sponsors of the September 11

attacks to justice [UN Docs. S/RES/1368 (2001) and S/RES/1373 (2001), invoking

Chapter VII enfo rc e me nt authority]. (See page 14 for exc e r p t s. )

• T he terrorist crimes of September 11 violate a host of U.S. criminal laws, inc l ud i ng

laws that criminalize acts of int e r na t io nal terrorism (specifically when such acts

i nc l ude ho m ic ide); de s t r uc t ion of airc raft, inc a p a c i t a t i ng any ind i v idual on an airc raft, perfo r m i ng an act of vio l e nce against any ind i v idual on an airc raft, or cons p i ri ng to do so; and fo rgery of passports or other immig ra t ion do c u me nt s. The terro r i s t

c r i mes also probably constitute crimes against hu ma n i t y, na me l y, multiple acts committed as part of a wide s p read or systema t ic attack kno w i ngly directed against any

c i v i l ian population in furthe ra nce of a state or org a n i z a t io nal polic y. The latter would

be a novel charge to prosecute in a U.S. fede ral court, as it derives from customa r y

i nt e r na t io nal law and is not codified as such in the U.S. fede ral criminal code. But as

a matter of int e r na t io nal law, the attacks of September 11 could be characterized as

c r i mes against hu manity and could be charged against the perpetra t o r s, if not in U.S.

f e de ral court then in a fo re ign jurisdic t ion or int e r na t io nal tribunal that exe rcises pers o nal jurisdic t ion over one or mo re suspects or recognizes such crimes as crimes of

universal jurisdic t ion. 

• T he United States Governme nt, the United Na t io ns, and the go v e r n me nts that have

j o i ned the coalition against terrorism have publicly established an objective of bringi ng the perpetrators of int e r na t io nal terrorism, inc l ud i ng those associated with the

September 11 attacks, to justic e. Law enfo rc e me nt age nc ies in the United States and

a ro u nd the world are working int e nsively to investig a t e, track, appre he nd, questio n ,

a nd cons ider ind ic t me nts of terrorist suspects. The Fede ral Bureau of Investig a t io n ’ s

“ Most Wa nted” list has inc l uded leading terrorist suspects since September 11, 2001,

for the purpose of appre he nd i ng and pro s e c u t i ng such ind i v iduals in U.S. fede ra l

c o u r t s. The U.S. Rewards for Justice Pro g ram, ent hu s ia s t ically pro moted by the Bush

a dm i n i s t ra t ion, is directed toward appre he ns ion and convic t ion of the terrorist suspects (and payme nts the re u nder pre s u mably would not be available if the suspects

d ied prior to appre he ns ion). Thus the political commitme nt to criminal justice is

exc e p t io nally high and could not be sidestepped without cre a t i ng a credibility gap in

go v e r n me nts’ justific a t io ns for their actio ns. The commitme nt to criminal justice is

j o i ne d, ho w e v e r, with the inhe re nt rig ht of ind i v idual and collective self-de f e nse arisi ng from the September 11 attacks, which has been affirmed by the United Na t io ns

Security Council [UN Docs. S/RES/1368 (2001) and S/RES/1373 (2001)]. The latter

r ig ht can take pre c e de nce over criminal justice de p e nd i ng upon the circ u ms t a nc e s

Law enfo rcement agencies in the

United States and around the

world are working intensively to

i n ve s t i g a t e, track, appre h e n d ,

question, and consider

indictments of terrorist suspects.

The terrorist crimes of 

September 11 violate a 

host of U.S. criminal laws.
4

that arise du r i ng military opera t io ns and the immine nt threat some of the suspects

may pose with respect to future terrorist attacks, which could give rise to ant ic i p atory self-de f e nse against such a threat. 

Te r rorist Suspects or Prisoners of Wa r ?

T he character of the campaign against terrorism has given rise to ex p l icit invocatio ns

of war by Pre s ide nt Bush and his cabinet and to the use of armed fo rce by the Un i t e d

States and the United Kingdom in Afghanistan. The question na t u rally arises whe t he r

t he terrorist suspects are not only int e r na t io nal terrorists but also bellige re nt combata nts entitled to prisoner of war status if capture d. Ans w e r i ng that question does no t

re q u i re us to answer the overrid i ng fa c t ual question of whe t her an actual war has begun.

That is a very differe nt de b a t e. The status of an ind i v idual as a prisoner of war unde r

t he 1949 Geneva Convent ion III Relative to the Tre a t me nt of Prisoners of War arises in

“all cases of de c l a red war or of any other armed conflict [ i t a l ics added] which may arise

between two or mo re of the High Cont ra c t i ng Pa r t ies [of the Convent ion], even if the

state of war is not recognized by one of them.” The question of status also may arise

in “all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Cont ra c t i ng Pa r t y,

even if the said occupation meets with no armed re s i s t a nc e.” Both Afghanistan and the

United States are High Cont ra c t i ng Pa r t ies of the third Geneva Convent io n .

Te r rorist suspects alre a dy are in custody in nu me rous jurisdic t io ns, inc l ud i ng the Un i ted States. No ne of them have been accorded prisoner of war status by law enfo rc e me nt

a u t ho r i t ie s. Ac h ie v i ng prisoner of war status may be difficult in any case. Article 4(A)(2)

of the third Geneva Convent ion would have the effect of re q u i r i ng that any al Qaeda terrorist must be a member of a militia or volunteer corps, inc l ud i ng those of organized re s i st a nce mo v e me nt s, and he or she must have fulfilled each of the fo l l o w i ng cond i t io ns :

• that of being comma nded by a person re s p o nsible for his subord i na t e s ;

• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distanc e ;

• that of carrying arms openly; and

• that of conduc t i ng their opera t io ns in accorda nce with the laws and customs of war.

An al Qaeda terrorist suspect pre s u mably would fail the final three re q u i re me nt s. Article 5 of the third Geneva Convent ion pro v ides enough flex i b i l i t y, particularly in the theater of opera t io ns, to gra nt a person prisoner of war status “until such time as the i r

status has been de t e r m i ned by a competent tribunal.” This may prove necessary with

respect to military opera t io ns in Afghanistan in the event ind i v iduals are appre he nde d

w hose ide ntity and backg ro u nd is not easily de t e r m i ne d. 

But beyond this temporary situa t ion, any erro neous perma ne nt de s ig na t ion of a terrorist suspect as a prisoner of war could lead to some odd situa t io ns. In partic u l a r, any

p r i s o ner of war who is a chaplain or a minister of re l ig ion would be at liberty to minister freely to others in captivity, which could lead to some awkward albeit ma na ge a b l e

s i t ua t io ns with any captured leaders of al Qaeda who claim re l ig ious ministry. Also, a

p r i s o ner of war would be re q u i red only to give his surna me, first na me, rank, date of

birth, and army, re g i me ntal, personal, or serial nu m b e r, or fa i l i ng that, equivalent info rma t ion. Of course, no other person in custody could or should be fo rced to pro v ide info rma t ion, but prisoner of war status mig ht enc o u ra ge terrorists to withhold info r ma t io n .

F u r t he r mo re, prisoners of war would be released and re p a t r iated without delay after the

c e s s a t ion of active ho s t i l i t ies unless they were involved in criminal pro c e e d i ngs for an

i nd ictable of f e ns e, although that probably would be the case with a terrorist suspect.

Even if the terrorist suspect were a prisoner of war, he or she could be investigated and

p rosecuted for the September 11 attacks, which were both U.S. and int e r na t io nal crime s

for which prisoners of war could be pro s e c u t e d. 

The character of the campaign

against terrorism has given rise

to explicit invocations of war by

P resident Bush and his cabinet

and to the use of armed fo rc e

by the United States and the

United Kingdom in Afg h a n i s ta n .

Te r rorist suspects already are in

c u s tody in numerous jurisd i c t i o n s, including the United

S ta t e s. None of them have been

a c c o rded prisoner of war sta t u s. 

E ven if the terrorist suspect we re

a prisoner of wa r, he or she could

be investigated and pro s e c u t e d

for the September 11 atta c k s,

which we re both U.S. and

international crimes for which

prisoners of war could be

p ro s e c u t e d .
5

T he de s ig na t ion of terrorist suspects as prisoners of war would accord them and the i r

o p e ratives no n - c o m b a t a nt bellige re nt status, an ide ntity that could give rise to arg ua b l e

j u s t i f ic a t io ns for some of the targets (such as military or go v e r n me nt fa c i l i t ies) al Qaeda

may select for its terrorist attacks. Such status would affo rd de f e nse counsel arg u me nt s

in de f e nse of a terrorist suspect that would not be credible if de l i v e red with respect to

an ind i v idual who does not have prisoner of war status.

If military personnel of the Taliban or any other of f ic ially organized military fo rce are

c a p t u red du r i ng the campaign against terrorism, then it would be prude nt to treat the m

as if they were prisoners of war for the mo me nt, as is the usual U.S. pra c t ic e. After exa mi na t ion, some of the fig hters or top leadership who have collaborated with al Qaeda

m ig ht be disqua l i f ied for prisoner of war status, but one would expect that the bulk of

s uch fo rces would be treated as prisoners of war until the end of ho s t i l i t ies and the i r

release pursua nt to the third Geneva Convent ion. 

Options for Pro s e c u t i o n

This report briefly exa m i nes nine possible optio ns for pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects.

T hese optio ns are not int e nded to be mu t ually exc l u s i v e. The re may well be occasion to

p rosecute differe nt terrorist suspects in differe nt courts in differe nt jurisdic t io ns simu lt a ne o u s l y. The simple reality is that terrorist suspects who are appre he nded or surre nde r

v o l u ntarily will doubtless be prosecuted in nu me rous jurisdic t io ns.

T he fo r t h c o m i ng perma ne nt Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court is not cons ide red as an

o p t ion since its jurisdic t ion applies only with respect to crimes committed after the ent r y

i nto fo rce of its treaty-based statute, and that has not yet occurre d. The re fo re, it would

not be empowered to investigate any of the terrorist crimes associated with the curre nt

c a m p a ign against terrorism. Any change in temporal jurisdic t ion would re q u i re an

a me ndme nt to the statute of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court, and no ame ndme nts are

permitted until the re v iew confere nce that will be convened seven years after the court

is establishe d. Any protocol to the statute of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court on this

issue probably would re q u i re cons e nsus support, which is highly unlikely amo ng all of

t he 139 sig na t o r ies of the statute. 

T he Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court’s subject matter jurisdic t ion also does not ex t e nd to

c r i mes of int e r na t io nal terrorism, although it is ent i rely possible that once the court is

e s t a b l i s he d, certain crimes of int e r na t io nal terrorism may also meet the de f i n i t ion of

c r i mes against hu ma n i t y, war crime s, or ge no c ide. UN Security Council action seeking to

b ro a den the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court’s temporal and subject matter jurisdic t ion to

e ncompass the September 11 attacks and perhaps other prior terrorist actio ns in de f ia nce of the court’s temporal and subject matter jurisdic t ion doubtless would be chall e nged on sig n i f ic a nt legal gro u nd s. Such a Security Council re s o l u t ion also would

establish a pre c e de nt that mig ht be used in other circ u ms t a nces to modify the temporal and subject matter jurisdic t ion of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court in ways that would

be profo u ndly disturbing to ma ny sig na t o r ies to the court’s statute. The ne go t ia t io ns

l e a d i ng to the statute of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court were firmly gro u nded on the

p r i nciple of prospective jurisdic t ion and on an initial limiting of the court’s subject ma tter jurisdic t ion to three catego r ies of crimes until proposed add i t io nal crimes could be

re v iewed seven years after establishme nt of the court and in the cont ext of fo r ma l

a me ndme nt to the statute. 

1. U.S. Fe d e ral Court

S e v e ral trials of ind i v iduals associated with the al Qaeda network alre a dy have take n

place in U.S. fede ral courts in conne c t ion with the 1993 World Tra de Center bombing and

t he 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Ke nya and Ta n z a n ia. Convic t io ns have been 

Te r rorist suspects who are

a p p rehended or surrender 

vo l u n tarily will doubtless 

be prosecuted in numero u s

j u r i s d i c t i o n s.
6

re nde red in all of these tria l s, which pro duced sig n i f ic a nt evide nce implic a t i ng al Qaeda

a nd Osama bin Laden in terrorist crime s. These jury trials were seen as fair (at least in

t he West) and complied with due process re q u i re me nt s.

In add i t ion, Osama bin Laden and other terrorist suspects have been ind icted by U.S.

f e de ral courts for pre-September 11 crimes and thus would stand trial in fede ral court if

a p p re he nded and bro u g ht to the United States. The advant a ges of a U.S. fede ral pro s ec u t ion of these terrorist suspects are cons ide ra b l e :

• For several de c a des the United States has led the world in the ne go t ia t ion and

i m p l e me nt a t ion of ant i - t e r rorism convent io ns that re q u i re states either to pro s ecute terrorists in na t io nal courts or to ex t radite terrorists to jurisdic t io ns that are

w i l l i ng and capable of pro s e c u t i ng them. The United States has enacted comprehe nsive ant i - t e r rorism laws that greatly facilitate the investig a t ion and pro s e c ut ion of terrorist suspects who fall within U.S. fede ral jurisdic t ion. A purposeful

de n ial of U.S. pro s e c u t ion of appre he nded terrorist suspects in de f e re nce to an

a l t e r native fo re ign or int e r na t io nal forum of pro s e c u t ion could unde r m i ne the

objective of na t io nal pro s e c u t io ns of terrorist suspects so vigo rously sought by the

United States for so ma ny years. Pro s e c u t ion in U.S. fede ral courts would de mo ns t rate to the world that the United States takes its oblig a t io ns under the ant i -

t e r rorism convent io ns serio u s l y.

• F e de ral pro s e c u t ion would enable prosecutors to use sensitive info r ma t ion that pro bably would not be available for any fo re ign or int e r na t io nal pro s e c u t ion. A great de a l

of evide nce in terrorism cases is classifie d, and the pro c e du res available under U.S.

law for the use of that info r ma t ion in fede ral criminal trials can ma ke the differe nc e

between pursuing a pro s e c u t ion or dro p p i ng it. 

• A U.S. fede ral criminal trial would gua ra ntee the de f e nda nt due process rig hts that

m ig ht not exist in a fo re ign or int e r na t io nal trial. Those due process rig hts he l p

e ns u re that a fair trial can take place, even if a U.S. trial may appear politically unfa i r

to some fo re ign observers.

• T he tho u s a nds of Ame r ican fa m i l ie s, frie nd s, and colleagues of the vic t i ms of the September 11 terrorist attacks and of the other terrorist attacks for which suspects have

been ind icted probably would expect the criminal trials to take place in U.S. fede ra l

c o u r t s. Their int e rests and rig hts are cons ide rable and mig ht prove difficult to accommo date if trials took place outside of the United States.

• T he United States has been a stro ng supporter of the principle of compleme nt a r i t y

( de f e r ral to na t io nal courts) that is fo u nd in the statute for the Int e r na t io nal Crimina l

Court. U.S. fede ral trials of the terrorist suspects would de mo ns t rate U.S. willing ne s s

a nd capability to pursue na t io nal pro s e c u t io ns of terrorist actio ns that probably constitute crimes against hu manity within the jurisdic t ion of the Int e r na t io nal Crimina l

Court had the Court been established prior to September 11, 2001. Ame r ican re l uc t a nc e

to prosecute could be used by those who argue that the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Court

is ne e ded to re s p o nd to the inability or unw i l l i ng ness of na t io nal justice systems to de a l

with such ma t t e r s, an arg u me nt that may have merit with respect to other jurisdic t io ns

but should not justified with Ame r ican no n - p e r fo r ma nc e. 

T he disadvant a ges of U.S. fede ral pro s e c u t ion inc l ude the fo l l o w i ng :

• T he burden of pro of in a terrorist trial in U.S. fede ral court is high (beyond a re a s o nable doubt) and thus may hinder efforts to bring terrorist suspects to justic e. Fede ra l

p rosecutors may be unw i l l i ng to use sensitive info r ma t ion that is inc r i m i na t i ng but

derived from sources and me t hods that could be jeopardized by the disclosure re q u i reme nts of a fede ral trial. Given the due process rig hts of a de f e nda nt in a fede ral tria l ,

t he terrorist suspect may reach acquittal and fre e dom mo re easily in a fede ral courtroom than in a fo re ign or int e r na t io nal courtroom (although the same info r ma t io n

a l most certainly would not be ma de available to any non-U.S. pro s e c u t io n ) .

The United States has enacted

c o m p re h e n s i ve anti-terro r i s m

laws that greatly fa c i l i tate the

i n vestigation and pro s e c u t i o n

of terrorist suspects who fa l l

within U.S. federal jurisdiction. 

Fe d e ral prosecution wo u l d

enable pro s e c u tors to use 

s e n s i t i ve information that 

p robably would not be 

a vailable for any fo reign or

international pro s e c u t i o n .

G i ven the due process rights 

of a defendant in a federal 

trial, the terrorist suspect may

reach acquittal and fre e d o m

m o re easily in a federa l

c o u r t room than in a fo reign or

international courtro o m .
7

• T he imposition of the death penalty on a convicted terrorist in a U.S. fede ral trial could

t ra ns form the de f e nda nt into a martyr for their cause. But the me re availability of the

death penalty also may pre v e nt certain fo re ign jurisdic t io ns, particularly in Euro p e, that

have prohibited the death penalty from ex t ra d i t i ng terrorist suspects to U.S. courts. The

United States may have to waive the death penalty in certain cases in order to obtain

c u s t o dy of terrorist suspects, and fede ral prosecutors may de c ide to seek life imprisonme nt as an alternative to the death penalty in order to avoid the ma r t y rdom issue.

• T he certainty of a jury trial in a fede ral pro s e c u t ion gives rise to the question of

w he t her any such trial could be fair given the impact of the terrorist attacks on the

A me r ican psyche and the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism. Jury trials have been

s uccessfully and fairly held (at least as far as most westerners are conc e r ned) for terrorist suspects of the 1993 World Tra de Center bombing and the 1998 U.S. embassy

b o m b i ng s. It would be a severe setback for the principle of jury trials in the Un i t e d

States if U.S. autho r i t ies assumed that such trials could not be fair for the mo s t

he i nous crimes ever to be committed on U.S. soil. The alternative in a fo re ign or

i nt e r na t io nal court almost certainly would rely exclusively on judges to exa m i ne the

e v ide nce and re nder verd ic t s.

• A fede ral criminal trial, particularly of the leaders of al Qaeda such as Osama bin

L a den and Dr. Ay man al-Zawahiri, could turn into a political firestorm sparking political de mo ns t ra t io ns against the United States in Is l a m ic count r ie s, mo re acts of terrorism against U.S. targe t s, and sig n i f ic a nt security risks for the trial itself. The

l o c a t ion of the fede ral trial and of the prisons whe re terrorist suspects are held could

b e c o me ma g nets for disturbances and security thre a t s. It could also be arg u e d, ho we v e r, that no matter whe re al Qaeda leaders are pro s e c u t e d, the U.S. role in that pro se c u t ion will be so do m i na nt that the political firestorm will ignite any w a y.

2. U.S. Military Court

A funda me ntal issue arises whe t her U.S. military courts or commissio ns (see next optio n )

would have jurisdic t ion under U.S. law over crimes committed in the United States outside

t he cont ext of an ongo i ng armed conflict. Without attempting to answer that very diffic u l t

q u e s t ion, if one assumes that U.S. military courts mig ht indeed have such jurisdic t ion, the n

it should be recognized that U.S. military courts offer the pro c e du re s, cons t ra i nt s, and

s e c recy under the Un i form Code of Military Justice that may be de s i rable with respect to

t he terrorist suspects. The crimes that were committed on September 11 were unique in

c h a racter and exe c u t ion, and the pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects may re q u i re the unique

attributes of a military trial. An overrid i ng advant a ge of a military trial is the de g ree of

c o nt rol that the United States could exe rcise over the pro c e s s. No t w i t hs t a nd i ng the September 11 attacks, U.S. military courts or commissio ns certainly may prove useful with

respect to any crimes committed by terrorist suspects or the Taliban or other regular ene my

fo rces du r i ng the military opera t io ns in Afghanistan or elsewhe re. 

Ho w e v e r, military trials in the United States would pre s e nt exc e p t io nally negative optic s

to int e r na t io nal aud ie nc e s, particularly in the Is l a m ic world. A U.S. military trial could

e m b o l den ex t remists to lash out at the militaristic character of the trial. While it may be

de t e r m i ned that it is possible to prosecute the terrorist suspects for terrorism crimes outs ide of an ongo i ng armed conflict, they would be likely to raise de f e nses as prisoners of

war and as bellige re nts that would deflect the ant i - t e r rorism pro s e c u t ion and seek to re focus the trial on the struggle between two bellige re nts ra t her than on crimes of terro r i s m .

3. U.S. Military Commission

U.S. fede ral law permits the establishme nt of “military commissio ns” to exe rcise conc u r re nt jurisdic t ion with courts-ma r t ial in order to prosecute vio l a t io ns of the laws of

The certainty of a jury trial 

in a federal prosecution give s

rise to the question of whether

a ny such trial could be fa i r.

M i l i tary trials in the United 

S tates would present exc e p t i o n a l l y

n e g a t i ve optics to international

a u d i e n c e s, particularly in the

Islamic wo r l d .
8

war or other of f e nses (such as perhaps terrorism) that may be authorized by statute.

T he re is cons ide rable flexibility associated with this autho r i t y, although it has ra re l y

been used. On November 13, 2001, Pre s ide nt Bush sig ned a pre s ide nt ial dire c t i v e

de c l a r i ng an “ex t ra o rd i nary eme rge ncy” and empowering him to establish military comm i s s io ns to prosecute non-U.S. citizens arrested in the United States or abro a d. This

tilt towards military trials no doubt arises from their utility in ado p t i ng specifically tail o red pro c e du res for the ex t ra o rd i nary pro s e c u t o r ial challenges that probably will arise

with the al Qaeda terrorist suspects and perhaps senior Taliban of f ic ials who collaborated with the terrorist suspects.

T he military commission could be established outside the United States on occupie d

fo re ign territory or on fo re ign territory with the cons e nt of local de facto autho r i t ie s

( s uch as perhaps in Afghanistan or in No r t hern Iraq). Such a location would have the

a d v a nt a ge of not having to tra nsfer captured suspects to U.S. territory, either thro u g h

re nd i t ion or through ex t ra d i t ion pro c e e d i ng s. This mig ht also minimize the de g ree to

w h ich ex t remists and al Qaeda itself would seek to direct further attacks against U.S.

t a rgets in re t r i b u t ion. Ho w e v e r, the fact that the court re ma i ns a U.S. forum could stoke

t he flames of ant i - A me r ican hatred and re t a l iatory actio ns re g a rdless of whe re the military commission is located. Again, the optics of a U.S. military commission pro s e c u t i ng

t he terrorist suspects, particularly on their own territory, mig ht project ima ges of a spec ial victor’s court and ignite far mo re opposition to the United States than would othe r

a l t e r natives for pro s e c u t io n .

4. Fo reign National Courts

P ro s e c u t ion in fo re ign na t io nal courts may prove to be the mo re likely alternative to U.S.

p ro s e c u t ion in a number of cases. British pro s e c u t ion of the Locke r b ie (Pan Am 103)

de f e nda nts (albeit in a special courtroom established in The Ne t he r l a nds and adjud ic a ted under Scottish law by Scottish judges) proved in the long run to be a much mo re

a t t ractive option than U.S. pro s e c u t ion for that particular terrorist crime. Fore ign pro se c u t io ns may also have important political advant a ge s. In terms of cons t r uc t i ng a ro b u s t

i nt e r na t io nal legal arc h i t e c t u re for de a l i ng with terrorism, the optics and the pra c t ic a l

c o ns e q u e nces of having pro s e c u t io ns in both U.S. and fo re ign courts is sig n i f ic a nt. This

may prove cruc ial to the long-term campaign, and Ame r ican vic t i ms should take comfo r t

f rom a scena r io in which the United States does not have to go it alone; ra t her a variety of count r ie s, through rigo rous pro s e c u t io ns, would treat the September 11 attacks

a nd their fallout as attacks against all civilized na t io ns. Fore ign trials may also pro v e

e s s e nt ial in de a l i ng with persons in the al Qaeda network who cannot be prosecuted fo r

U.S. crimes but are still important parts of the overall terrorist threat to us. 

Te r rorist suspects may be investigated and prosecuted in one or mo re fo re ign courts

re g a rdless of U.S. int e rests or de s i re s, and this is alre a dy happening. A fo re ign go v e r nme nt may refuse a U.S. ex t ra d i t ion request, for exa m p l e. This could well be the case if

t he United States de c l i nes to waive the death penalty with respect to a terrorist suspect

held in an ant i - death penalty jurisdic t ion. Also, fo re ign of f ic ials may cons ider it the i r

own re s p o nsibility to bring to justice ind i v iduals who eng a ged within their jurisdic t io n

in the planning or commission of terrorist attacks either on their own soil or elsewhe re.

A nd the United States may find it pre f e rable for certain low- or mid-level terrorist suspects to be prosecuted befo re fo re ign courts, particularly in highly developed jurisdict io ns whe re we have confide nce in the jud ic ial system.

Ho w e v e r, fo re ign trials of terrorist suspects ind icted by the United States for crime s

committed against the United States could lead to far mo re unpre d ictable outcome s,

i nc l ud i ng acquittals. Addre s s i ng the needs of U.S. vic t i ms, inc l ud i ng access to the tria l s,

would be far mo re difficult. The availability of U.S.-ge ne rated evide nce may be gre a t l y

c o ns t ra i ned because of the sensitivity and sources and me t hods associated with that evide nc e. The applicable law in the fo re ign jurisdic t ion may prove tro u b l e s o me, as the

P rosecution in fo reign national

courts may prove to be the more

likely alternative to U.S. pro s ecution in a number of cases.

Fo reign trials of terrorist suspects

indicted by the United States fo r

crimes committed against the

United States could lead to fa r

m o re unpre d i c table outc o m e s.
9

c h a rges that could be prosecuted in some fo re ign courts may not encompass the totality of the crimes committed on U.S. soil and which are so clearly ide nt i f ied under U.S.

l a w. Ma ny fo re ign go v e r n me nts may balk at local tria l s, re c o g n i z i ng that they could invite

v io l e nt int e r nal disturbances that can threaten their own stability and survival. But the i r

re l uc t a nce to prosecute do me s t ically may also manifest itself in a re l uc t a nce to ex t ra d i t e

t e r rorist suspects to the United States, an action that could ge ne rate a compara b l e

de g ree of int e r nal vio l e nce from supporters of al Qaeda or the ind i v idual terrorist suspects who have been ex t ra d i t e d. 

5. UN Security Council Ad Hoc International Criminal Tr i b u n a l

As it did in 1993 with the establishme nt of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Tr i b u nal for the

F o r mer Yu go s l a v ia and in 1994 with the cre a t ion of the Int e r na t io nal Criminal Tr i b u na l

for Rwanda, the UN Security Council could establish an int e r na t io nal criminal tribunal on

t e r rorism that would operate under UN Charter Chapter VII enfo rc e me nt authority to

i n v e s t ig a t e, ind ict, detain, and prosecute terrorist suspects. All things cons ide re d, this

would be the most potent legal option that could be selected at the int e r na t io nal level.

T he blueprints for such a tribunal alre a dy exist with the Yu goslav and Rwanda tribuna l s.

T he terrorism tribunal pre s u mably would exe rcise primary jurisdic t ion over any ind i v idual suspected of perpetra t i ng the crime of int e r na t io nal terrorism. It could request the

c o o p e ra t ion of any member state of the United Na t io ns to obtain evide nce and to apprehe nd and tra nsfer to the tribunal any ind icted suspect. A member state’s fa i l u re or re f u s a l

to cooperate with the terrorism tribunal probably would trig ger the Security Counc i l ’ s

powers to compel coopera t ion through diploma t ic, econo m ic, military, or other me a ns.

T he judges of the tribunal probably would be elected by the UN Gene ral Assembly and

be drawn from an int e r na t io nal roster of cand idates re p re s e nt i ng the major legal systems

of the world. The prosecutor probably would be selected by the UN Security Council. One

would expect the location of the terrorism tribunal to be in a very secure jurisdic t io n ,

but one not directly targeted yet by int e r na t io nal terrorists or heavily involved in the

military campaign against terro r i s m .

A varia t ion on this option would be Security Council action under Chapter VII of

t he UN Charter to ex p a nd the jurisdic t ion of the ex i s t i ng Int e r na t io nal Criminal Tr ib u nal for the Former Yu go s l a v ia (ICTY) to inc l ude the ent i rely separate terrorist crime s

of September 11, 2001, and perhaps other terrorist crime s, and place one or mo re

Is l a m ic judges on the bench for political balanc e. The chief prosecutor of the ICTY has

i nd icated her willing ness to sho u l der this add i t io nal re s p o ns i b i l i t y. Expans ion of the

ICTY’s jurisdic t ion has been proposed in the past for other atro c i t ie s, and each time

s uch proposals failed for lack of ade q uate political and fina nc ial support. Most of the

p ro b l e ms ide nt i f ied below with respect to a fre e - s t a nd i ng ad hoc tribunal also would

apply to an ex p a nded IC T Y.

A l t hough a UN Security Council ad hoc tribunal is an attractive option because of its

legal authority and the support it would ge ne rate from the int e r na t io nal commu n i t y, any

e f fort to establish it would be exc e p t io nally challeng i ng. Security Council me m b e r s, both

p e r ma ne nt and no n - p e r ma ne nt, suffer from “tribunal fa t ig u e.” This has been true fo r

ma ny years no w. Although Chapter VII ad hoc int e r na t io nal criminal tribunals were

re c e ntly proposed for Cambodia (re g a rd i ng pro s e c u t ion of senior Khmer Rouge leade r s

for crimes committed du r i ng the Pol Pot re g i me of 1975–79) and Sie r ra Leone (re g a rdi ng pro s e c u t ion of perpetrators of he i nous crimes in Sie r ra Leone du r i ng its civil war),

t he Security Council balked each time, instead pre f e r r i ng hy b r id arra nge me nts that minimized council eng a ge me nt. 

T he Security Council’s fa t igue derives from several sourc e s. First, ad hoc int e r nat io nal criminal tribunals are very costly to establish and opera t e. The annual budge t

of each of the Yu goslav and Rwanda tribunals hovers aro u nd $100 million, and the i r

b udgets inc rease each year. Given the always pre c a r ious cond i t ion of the UN ge ne ra l

Although a UN Security Council

ad hoc tribunal is an attra c t i ve

option because of its legal

authority and the support it

would generate from the international community, any effo r t

to establish it would be

exceptionally challenging.
1 0

b udget, any proposal that would impose such a sig n i f ic a nt add i t io nal cost to the budget could fail unless, perhaps, the United States were pre p a red to ma ke hu ge voluntary cont r i b u t io ns to the cost. Second, the immine nt establishme nt of the perma ne nt

I nt e r na t io nal Criminal Court (ICC), which will be fina nced largely by states that sig n

t he ICC tre a t y, ma kes ma ny council members wary of cre a t i ng a separate jud ic ia l

b u re a uc racy that could unde r m i ne the authority or stature of the ICC. Third, the ina b i lity of UN member states to de f i ne int e r na t io nal terrorism and its criminal attributes,

as most re c e ntly evide nced in Gene ral Assembly debates and ongo i ng UN talks about

dra f t i ng an int e r na t io nal convent ion on terrorism, ind icates the re is not suffic ie nt

i nt e r na t io nal cons e nsus to give such a tribunal the legitimacy it would re q u i re.

Fourth, the re probably would be a long and perhaps futile effort to de f i ne the pers o nal jurisdic t ion of such a tribunal, na me l y, who precisely could be targeted for invest ig a t ion and ind ic t me nt. Given the unc e r t a i nty in the de f i n i t ion of int e r na t io na l

t e r rorism and the political int e rests of differe nt sectors of the int e r na t io nal commu n it y, re a c h i ng agre e me nt on who qua l i f ies as a terrorist suspect for the tribunal would

be exc e e d i ngly difficult. The re would be eno r mous pre s s u re from certain go v e r n me nt s

to ex t e nd the jurisdic t ion of the terrorism tribunal to all coalition military actio ns in

t he campaign against terrorism and to the conduct of Is rael in the Middle East. 

Fifth, the Security Council itself is an unpopular entity amo ng ma ny Arab states and

a mo ng ma ny other member states of the United Na t io ns, inc l ud i ng some which have

c h a l l e nged the legitimacy of the Yu goslav and Rwanda tribuna l s. Mo re o v e r, re l a t io ns

between the UN Gene ral Assembly and the Security Council are stra i ne d, particularly with

respect to how the Security Council has handled the campaign against terrorism. Unde r

t hese cond i t io ns, the willing ness of the Gene ral Assembly to approve a hefty budget fo r

s uch a tribunal would be very pro b l e ma t ic.

F i na l l y, given the sensitive character of so much of the evide nce implic a t i ng terro r i s t

s u s p e c t s, it could prove ex t re mely difficult to ma ke that evide nce available to any int e rna t io nal court, even one established by the Security Council and empowered with the

s a me rules on pro t e c t ion of sensitive info r ma t ion that are used by the ex i s t i ng Yu go s l a v

a nd Rwanda tribuna l s. Without such info r ma t ion, pro s e c u t io ns may fa i l .

6. UN General Assembly Ad Hoc International Criminal Tr i b u n a l

T he alternative to action by the Security Council mig ht be action by the Gene ral As s e mbly to establish an ad hoc int e r na t io nal criminal tribunal. This approach is popular with

t he critics of the Security Council as it pre s u mably would de mo ns t rate a bro a der int e rna t io nal cons e nsus for the cre a t ion of an int e r na t io nal court. Ho w e v e r, the idea is

f ra u g ht with diffic u l t ie s. The Gene ral Assembly cannot exe rcise Chapter VII enfo rc e me nt

a u t hority under the UN Charter. That authority is reserved exclusively to the Security

C o u ncil. The re fo re, the Gene ral Assembly has no power to create an int e r na t io nal tribuna l

that would have any authority to deprive an ind i v idual of his or her fre e dom while awaiti ng trial, or any authority to convict an ind i v idual and inc a rc e rate that person. Only the

Security Council can compel a member state to cooperate with such a tribunal, and in

t he absence of Security Council action to establish the tribunal, the re would be no basis

for using the council to take any such enfo rc e me nt action. 

F u r t he r, the politics of the Gene ral Assembly are such that re a c h i ng agre e me nt about

t he personal and subject matter jurisdic t ion of the tribunal would be ex t re mely diffic u l t

a nd probably una c h ie v a b l e. Attempts would be ma de to ex p a nd the jurisdic t ion of the

t r i b u nal to encompass coalition military opera t io ns, and thus to sit in judg me nt of the

legality of the military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban fo rces in Afg h a n i s t a n ,

a nd any w he re else the United States and partic i p a t i ng coalition partners choose to strike

in the future. The United States and other perma ne nt members of the UN Security Council likely would oppose any attempt by the Gene ral Assembly to create such an int e r nat io nal criminal tribuna l .

The General Assembly has no

p ower to create an international

tribunal that would have any

authority to deprive an individual of his or her freedom while

a waiting trial, or any authority

to convict an individual and

i n c a rc e rate that person.
1 1

7. A Coalition Treaty-Based Criminal Tr i b u n a l

T he de facto coalition that has fo r med to wage the campaign against terrorism on nu me rous fro nt s, inc l ud i ng diploma t ic, econo m ic, and military effo r t s, could ne go t iate amo ng all

or some of its members a mu l t i l a t e ral treaty that would create a criminal court for the purpose of investig a t i ng and pro s e c u t i ng terrorist suspects. The jurisdic t ion of such a court

m ig ht be cons t ra i ned to the territories of the states that are parties to such a treaty and

to terrorist suspects located in such territories as well as to terrorist suspects who also are

c i t i z e ns of such states. The coalition court would be powerless to compel coopera t ion by

non-states partie s, particularly with respect to the pro duc t ion of evide nce and the apprehe ns ion and delivery into the custody of the court of ind icted terrorist suspects. 

A coalition court may have an easier time arriving at an acceptable de f i n i t ion of

i nt e r na t io nal terrorism and de t e r m i n i ng who are the targets of investig a t ion, especia l l y

if such a court focuses only on terrorist crimes that have led to U.S. fede ral ind ic t me nt s

of a large number of terrorist suspects. The judges for a coalition court could be uniquely selected to suit the political re q u i re me nts of coalition me m b e r s. For exa m p l e, one or

mo re Is l a m ic law judges could be chosen by coalition members to sit on the court. The

p rosecutor’s staff could inc l ude Is l a m ic lawyers. 

T he costs of the coalition court would have to be borne by the parties to the tre a t y

e s t a b l i s h i ng the court. If the United States were to offer to sho u l der a large and disprop o r t io nate share of that cost, other coalition members mig ht show greater int e rest in the

p roposal. No ne t he l e s s, the time re q u i red to ne go t iate a coalition treaty-based crimina l

court could be sig n i f ic a nt and cause unacceptable delay in bring i ng perpetrators to justic e.

Given the ebb and flow of the ant i - t e r rorism coalition, and its admittedly fluc t ua t i ng comp o s i t ion de p e nd i ng on the particular mission, it mig ht prove difficult to establish a bro a d -

based group of states willing to enter into a treaty to establish such a special court. Some

of the diffic u l t ies that would confro nt the UN Gene ral As s e m b l y, such as de f i n i ng the crime s

a nd the targets of investig a t ion, could burden a coalition effort as well. Is l a m ic states,

w hose partic i p a t ion in a coalition court would be pre f e rable to enhance its legitimacy and

p o l i t ical acceptability, mig ht prove to be tro u b l e s o me partners if their vision of a coalitio n

court diverges too greatly from Ame r ican and other western plans.

T he pre c e de nts for a coalition criminal court are few in nu m b e r, but they do offer some

ex p e r ie nc e. The Inde p e nde nt Special Court for Sie r ra Leone will be a treaty-based court created by int e r na t io nal agre e me nt between the United Na t io ns and the go v e r n me nt of Sie rra Leone, with the option of dra w i ng in mo re go v e r n me nts if the court needs to locate

o u t s ide of Sie r ra Leone for security purposes. The Nu re m b e rg and Tokyo tribunals establ i s hed after World War II were uniquely tailored courts located on fo r mer ene my territory

a nd adm i n i s t e red by the victors of the war. Their unu s ual circ u ms t a nces do not offer a legal

or political mo del for pro s e c u t i ng terrorist suspects in the campaign against terrorism. 

8. A Special Islamic Court

Given the funda me ntalist Is l a m ic unde r p i n n i ngs (however distorted and misguided) of al

Q a e da and of various terrorist cells implicated in int e r na t io nal terrorism, some observers

have suggested that a special Is l a m ic court be established to investigate and bring terrorist suspects of Is l a m ic faith to justic e. It is argued that such a court would be mo re

acceptable to the Is l a m ic world and thus quell the ant i - A me r ican de mo ns t ra t io ns and

acts of re t r i b u t ion that are occurring and would likely inc rease if trials are held in U.S.,

i nt e r na t io nal, or fo re ign courts.

T he proposal raises ma ny difficult questio ns, ho w e v e r. First, how would such an Is l a mic court be created and in what jurisdic t ion? Would it be a treaty-based court fo r med by

certain Is l a m ic go v e r n me nts and, if so, which ones? Would Is l a m ic law have enough scope

to re q u i re full investig a t ion and pro s e c u t ion of the terrorist crimes that have been committed against U.S. targets? In other word s, is Is l a m ic law suffic ie ntly flexible to confro nt

The time re q u i red to negotiate a

coalition treaty-based criminal

court could be significant and

cause unacceptable delay in

bringing perpetra tors to justice. 

Some observers have suggested

that a special Islamic court be

e s tablished to investigate and

bring terrorist suspects of 

Islamic faith to justice. . . . The

p roposal raises many difficult

q u e s t i o n s, howeve r.
t he challenge of int e r na t io nal terrorism? How could the int e r na t io nal commu n i t y, and part icularly the United States and no n - Is l a m ic coalition partne r s, be assured that terrorist suspects would be vigo rously pursued and prosecuted by a special Is l a m ic court? What

de f e nses could be raised by de f e nda nts befo re such a court? Would a special Is l a m ic court

seek to exe rcise jurisdic t ion over the coalition military campaign or seek to exa m i ne Is ra e l i

a c t io ns? How could a special Is l a m ic court satisfy the de ma nds of the fa m i l ie s, frie nd s, and

colleagues of the vic t i ms of the terrorist crimes committed in the United States or agains t

U.S. targets globally, particularly if the trials are held in relatively inaccessible locatio ns

a nd using law that falls far short of what is available under U.S. fede ral law, the laws of

o t her coalition partne r s, or int e r na t io nal ant i - t e r rorism convent io ns? 

F i na l l y, while the sent e nc i ng guide l i nes of an Is l a m ic court mig ht indeed inc l ude the

death pena l t y, they mig ht also inc l ude me a s u res that would be re g a rded under int e r nat io nal standa rds of due pro c e s s, and certainly in the United States, as cruel and unu s ua l

p u n i s h me nt. European go v e r n me nts probably would not endorse any Is l a m ic court that

could re nder the death pena l t y, and the United States probably would not endorse any

Is l a m ic court that could re nder a sent e nce with punishme nt that would be viewed as cruel

a nd unu s ual under U.S. cons t i t u t io nal law (no t w i t hs t a nd i ng the views of some that the

death penalty itself is cruel and unu s ual punishme nt ) .

A sub-option mig ht be the pro s e c u t ion of certain terrorist suspects in, for exa m p l e,

U.S. fede ral courts or fo re ign na t io nal courts for crimes committed against U.S. citizens,

U.S. military targe t s, or no n - Is l a m ic fo re ign na t io na l s, followed by trials of the same terrorist suspects befo re a special Is l a m ic court (or perhaps an ex i s t i ng Is l a m ic law court

in a fo re ign jurisdic t ion) for crimes committed against Mu s l i ms. This would inc l ude the

Muslim vic t i ms of the September 11 attacks. Ho w e v e r, it mig ht prove difficult if no t

impossible to ex t radite any terrorist suspect convicted in a U.S. or fo re ign court to a spec ial Is l a m ic court or even an Is l a m ic law court in ano t her fo re ign jurisdic t ion. It also

m ig ht not prove attractive to prosecutors in the United States or a fo re ign jurisdic t io n

to exc l ude the mu rder of Mu s l i ms from their ind ic t me nt s.

9. UN-Ad m i n i s t e red Courts in Afg h a n i s ta n

In the event the United Na t io ns assumes adm i n i s t rative authority in Afghanistan in the

w a ke of the coalition military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban, UN autho r it ies could establish one or mo re courts on Afghan territory that would exe rcise jurisd ic t ion over terrorist suspects appre he nded in Afghanistan for crimes they are charge d

with committing any w he re in the world. Pre c e de nts for UN courts are fo u nd in Ko s o v o

a nd East Timor in re c e nt years, albeit under differe nt circ u ms t a nces and with varying

de g rees of suc c e s s. The UN courts would have the advant a ge of exe rc i s i ng persona l

j u r i s d ic t ion and of applying int e r na t io nal no r ms of investig a t ion and pro s e c u t ion on the

territory whe re the suspects are located. In any event, assuming de p l o y me nt of some

UN peaceke e p i ng fo rce and the ere c t ion of a UN temporary adm i n i s t ra t ion in

A fghanistan, the re likely will be UN-adm i n i s t e red courts and they pre s u mably will have

to deal with ongo i ng crimes related to terrorist suspects or their opera t i v e s. The re a l

q u e s t ion will be what crimes these courts will be empowered to handle and what will

be adjud icated in other fo r u ms.

Ma ny other questio ns and issues arise with respect to this option. What would be the

a p p l icable law, a question that has bedeviled UN initiatives elsewhe re in the world?

Would the Security Council be willing to invest authority in such courts, and would the

G e ne ral Assembly be willing to pay for them? The re would be sig n i f ic a nt security conc e r ns for such courts on Afghan territory, and large associated costs with ens u r i ng the i r

s e c u r i t y. Staffing such courts with competent judge s, pro s e c u t o r s, de f e nse counsel, and

a dm i n i s t rators would prove da u nt i ng given the infra s t r uc t u re of Afghanistan and the

risks associated with any assig n me nt the re for such ind i v iduals (who typically do no t

work under such cond i t io ns). Fina l l y, the United States and other key states pro b a b l y

1 2

UN authorities could esta b l i s h

one or more courts on Afg h a n

t e r r i tory that would exe rc i s e

jurisdiction over terrorist suspects. 
would be very re l uc t a nt to pro v ide UN courts situated in Afghanistan with the sens i t i v e

i n fo r ma t ion that likely would be re q u i red for successful pro s e c u t io ns.

T he re could be varia t io ns on this option, ho w e v e r, that may prove de s i rable and

even essent ial in the mo nt hs ahe a d. The re mig ht be na t io nal Afghan courts under some

form of UN autho r i z a t ion or sanc t ion. Ano t her varia t ion would be a mixed tribunal in

A fghanistan ne go t iated by the United Na t io ns and tailored roughly along the lines of

t he Extra o rd i nary Chambers in Cambodia that will investigate and prosecute senio r

K h mer Rouge leaders from the Pol Pot era. But this option would have to assume a fa r

mo re accommo da t i ng go v e r n me nt in Kabul and enough of a jud ic ial infra s t r uc t u re to

establish the most basic re q u i re me nts for a court using both int e r na t io nal and na t io nal personnel and laws. 

T he re mig ht simply be na t io nal Afghan courts under a new go v e r n me nt that would be

given ge ne ral re c o g n i t ion and int e r na t io nal assistanc e. Whe t her or not these courts are

t u r ned to for pro s e c u t ion of al Qaeda personnel, the re will be a need for credible courts

in Afghanistan. So the int e r na t io nal community still will have re a s o ns to incur the burde ns of pro v id i ng legal re s o u rces and personnel to courts in Afghanistan (after the military campaign and an acceptable go v e r n me ntal tra ns i t ion). Even if such courts are no t

suitable for trial of the September 11 attacks, they may still be important me a ns for de a li ng with al Qaeda operatives who cannot be prosecuted in U.S. courts, or whose tria l

he re would be an adm i n i s t rative and political lia b i l i t y.

C o n c l u s i o n

T he criminal justice objective of the campaign against terrorism is well established and

i ndeed the stro ngest pillar of the int e r na t io nal coalition that has been fo rged by the

United States since September 11, 2001. The re are clear advant a ges to bring i ng terro rist suspects to justic e, inc l ud i ng the evide nce that would be derived from criminal trials and mig ht help to further uncover the al Qaeda terrorist network, as well as the

simple fact that justice is a lynchpin of Ame r ican socie t y. Tho u s a nds of vic t i ms look to

courts of law for punishme nt and closure. The United States was not fo u nded on the

p r i nciple of summary exe c u t ion. It is like l y, ho w e v e r, that at least some terrorist suspects will perish as the United States and the coalition exe rcise their inhe re nt rig hts of

i nd i v idual and collective self-de f e nse against terrorist threats and actio ns. No ne t he l e s s,

law enfo rc e me nt autho r i t ies aro u nd the world as well as the U.S. and UK militaries are

i nt e nsively seeking out terrorist suspects and alre a dy appre he nd i ng ma ny of their suspected accomplices to stand trial. 

At least for the imme d iate future, key optio ns for pro s e c u t ion of terrorist suspects will

be U.S. fede ral courts—whe re so ma ny of them alre a dy have been ind icted for pre – S e ptember 11 crime s — a nd fo re ign na t io nal courts that have custody of terrorist suspects and

a re willing and capable of bring i ng them to justic e. The stark reality that so ma ny terro rist crimes have been directed at U.S. targets (inc l ud i ng ma ny on U.S. territory), the U.S.

c o m m i t me nt to int e r na t io nal ant i - t e r rorism convent io ns that re q u i re na t io nal pro s e c u t io n

or ex t ra d i t ion for trial of terrorist suspects, and the compre he nsive character of U.S. ant i -

t e r rorism laws—all these factors point toward U.S. trials whe re custody can be obtaine d.

T he United States should de mo ns t rate its de t e r m i na t ion to prosecute terrorist suspects

w i t hout being int i m idated by threats of Is l a m ic de mo ns t ra t io ns and re t r i b u t io ns. Certain

h ighly developed fo re ign na t io nal courts, in jurisdic t io ns of the coalition whe re ma ny of

t he terrorist suspects and their accomplices have been and will cont i nue to be fo u nd, also

will play a key role in investig a t io ns and pro s e c u t io ns. 

W h ic hever of the optio ns is ultimately used, it will be bene f ic ial if the curre nt military campaign inc o r p o rates the goal of pre s e r v a t ion of re l e v a nt evide nce whe re possible,

so that it may be effectively used in pro s e c u t io ns.

Much will de p e nd on how ma ny terrorist suspects are appre he nded and how feasible and

The criminal justice objective of

the campaign against terro r i s m

is well established and indeed

the strongest pillar of the international coalition that has been

fo rged by the United Sta t e s

since September 11, 2001.

1 3

T h e re might be national Afg h a n

courts under some form of UN

authorization or sanction.
re a l i s t ic any military, int e r na t io nal, or Is l a m ic law option for pro s e c u t ion may become.

No ne t he l e s s, the debate should begin now on what combina t ion of U.S., military, fo re ig n ,

a nd/or int e r na t io nal courts mig ht prove most useful for the effective pro s e c u t ion of int e rna t io nal terro r i s t s. For the long term, ho w e v e r, the re is little doubt that a viable and cre dible jud ic ial system will need to eme rge in Afghanistan, and that substant ial int e r na t io na l

a s s i s t a nce will be re q u i red to help instill the rule of law in that country and perhaps to

b r i ng to justice those al Qaeda operatives who are not ex t radited or otherwise re mo v e d

f rom Afg h a n i s t a n .

Related UN Security Council Resolutions

Resolution 1267 (1999)

The Security Council, . . . 

Recalling t he re l e v a nt int e r na t io nal count e r - t e r rorism convent io ns and in partic u l a r

t he oblig a t io ns of parties to those convent io ns to ex t radite or prosecute terro r i s t s,

Strongly condemning t he cont i nu i ng use of Afghan territory, especially areas cont rolled by the Taliban, for the she l t e r i ng and tra i n i ng of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and re a f f i r m i ng its convic t ion that the suppre s s ion of int e r na t io nal terro r i s m

is essent ial for the ma i nt e na nce of int e r na t io nal peace and security,

D e p l o r i n g t he fact that the Taliban cont i nues to pro v ide safe haven to Us a ma bin

L a den and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terro rist tra i n i ng camps from Ta l i b a n - c o nt rolled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base

f rom which to sponsor int e r na t io nal terrorist opera t io ns,

Noting t he ind ic t me nt of Us a ma bin Laden and his associates by the United States of

A me r ica fo r, inter alia, the 7 August 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in

Na i robi, Ke nya and Dar es Salaam, Ta n z a n ia and for cons p i r i ng to kill Ame r ican na t io nals outside the United States, and no t i ng also the request of the United States of Ame rica to the Taliban to surre nder them for trial (S/1999/1021),

D e t e r m i n i n g that the fa i l u re of the Taliban autho r i t ies to re s p o nd to the de ma nds in

p a ra g raph 13 of re s o l u t ion 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to int e r na t io nal peace and

s e c u r i t y, . . . 

Ac t i n g u nder Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Na t io ns,

1. Insists that the Afghan fa c t ion known as the Taliban, which also calls itself the

Is l a m ic Emirate of Afghanistan, comply promptly with its pre v ious re s o l u t io ns and in part icular cease the pro v i s ion of sanc t uary and tra i n i ng for int e r na t io nal terrorists and the i r

o rg a n i z a t io ns, take appro p r iate effective me a s u res to ens u re that the territory under its

c o nt rol is not used for terrorist ins t a l l a t io ns and camps, or for the pre p a ra t ion or org an i z a t ion of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with effo r t s

to bring ind icted terrorists to justic e ;

2. D e m a n d sthat the Taliban turn over Us a ma bin Laden without further delay to approp r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re he has been ind ic t e d, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ie s

in a country whe re he will be re t u r ned to such a count r y, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in

a country whe re he will be arrested and effectively bro u g ht to justice; . . . 

5. U r g e s all States to cooperate with efforts to fulfil the de ma nd in para g raph 2 above,

a nd to cons ider further me a s u res against Us a ma bin Laden and his associates; . . . 

7 . Calls upon all States to act strictly in accorda nce with the pro v i s io ns of this re so l u t ion, no t w i t hs t a nd i ng the ex i s t e nce of any rig hts or oblig a t io ns conferred or

imposed by any int e r na t io nal agre e me nt or any cont ract ent e red into or any lic e nce 

or permit gra nted prior to the date of coming into fo rce of the me a s u res imposed by

p a ra g raph 4 above. . . .

1 4

For the long term, there is little

doubt that a viable and cre d i b l e

judicial system will need to

e m e rge in Afg h a n i s tan, and that

s u b s tantial internal assistance 

will be re q u i red to help instill 

the rule of law.
Resolution 1333 (2000)

The Security Council, . . .

R e c a l l i n g t he re l e v a nt int e r na t io nal count e r - t e r rorism convent io ns and in partic u l a r

t he oblig a t io ns of parties to those convent io ns to ex t radite or prosecute terro r i s t s,

Strongly condemning t he cont i nu i ng use of the areas of Afghanistan under the cont rol of the Afghan fa c t ion known as Taliban, which also calls itself the Is l a m ic Emira t e

of Afghanistan (he re i nafter known as the Taliban), for the she l t e r i ng and tra i n i ng of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its convic t ion that the suppre s s io n

of int e r na t io nal terrorism is essent ial for the ma i nt e na nce of int e r na t io nal peace and

s e c u r i t y, . . . 

Deploring t he fact the Taliban cont i nues to pro v ide safe haven to Us a ma bin Lade n

a nd to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist tra i ni ng camps from Ta l i b a n - c o nt rolled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from whic h

to sponsor int e r na t io nal terrorist opera t io ns,

N o t i n g t he ind ic t me nt of Us a ma bin Laden and his associates by the United States of

A me r ica fo r, inter alia, the 7 August 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in

Na i robi, Ke nya and Dar es Salaam, Ta n z a n ia and for cons p i r i ng to kill Ame r ican na t io nals outside the United States, and noting also t he request of the United States of Ame rica to the Taliban to surre nder them for trial (S/1999/1021), . . . 

D e t e r m i n i n g that the fa i l u re of the Taliban autho r i t ies to re s p o nd to the de ma nds . . .

in para g raph 2 of re s o l u t ion 1267 (1999) constitutes a threat to int e r na t io nal peace and

s e c u r i t y, . . . 

Ac t i n g u nder Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Na t io ns,

1. Demands that the Taliban comply with re s o l u t ion 1267 (1999) and, in partic u l a r,

cease the pro v i s ion of sanc t uary and tra i n i ng for int e r na t io nal terrorists and their org an i z a t io ns, take appro p r iate effective me a s u res to ens u re that the territory under its cont rol is not used for terrorist ins t a l l a t io ns and camps, or for the pre p a ra t ion or

o rg a n i z a t ion of terrorist acts against other States or their citizens, and cooperate with

i nt e r na t io nal efforts to bring ind icted terrorists to justic e ;

2. Demands also that the Taliban comply without further delay with the de ma nd of

t he Security Council in para g raph 2 of re s o l u t ion 1267 (1999) that re q u i res the Ta l i b a n

to turn over Us a ma bin Laden to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re he has been

i nd ic t e d, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re he will be re t u r ned to such a

c o u nt r y, or to appro p r iate autho r i t ies in a country whe re he will be arrested and effectively bro u g ht to justic e ;

3. Demands further that the Taliban should act swiftly to close all camps whe re terrorists are tra i ned within the territory under its cont rol, and c a l l s for the confirma t ion of

s uch closures by the United Na t io ns, inter alia, through info r ma t ion ma de available to

t he United Na t io ns by Member States in accorda nce with para g raph 19 below and

t h rough other me a ns necessary to assure complia nce with this re s o l u t ion; . . . 

16. R e q u e s t s t he Committee to fulfil its ma ndate by unde r t a k i ng the fo l l o w i ng tasks

in add i t ion to those set out in re s o l u t ion 1267 (1999): . . . (b) To establish and ma i ntain updated lists, based on info r ma t ion pro v ided by States and re g io nal org a n i z a t io ns,

of ind i v iduals and ent i t ies de s ig nated as being associated with Us a ma bin Laden. . . . 

Resolution 1368 (2001)

The Security Council, . . .

Recognizing t he inhe re nt rig ht of ind i v idual or collective self-de f e nce in accorda nc e

with the Charter,

1. Unequivocally condemns in the stro ngest terms the ho r r i f y i ng terrorist attacks whic h

took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Wa s h i ngton, D.C. and Pe n ns y l v a n ia and

1 5
regards s uch acts, like any act of int e r na t io nal terrorism, as a threat to int e r na t io nal peace

a nd security; . . . 

3. C a l l s on all States to work toge t her urge ntly to bring to justice the perpetra t o r s,

o rganizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and s t r e s s e s that those re s p o nsible fo r

a id i ng, supporting or harbouring the perpetra t o r s, organizers and sponsors of these acts

will be held account a b l e ;

4. Calls also on the int e r na t io nal community to re double their efforts to pre v e nt and

s u p p ress terrorist acts inc l ud i ng by inc reased coopera t ion and full impleme nt a t ion of the

re l e v a nt int e r na t io nal ant i - t e r rorist convent io ns and Security Council re s o l u t io ns, in part icular re s o l u t ion 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999;

5. E x p r e s s e s its re a d i ness to take all necessary steps to re s p o nd to the terrorist attacks

of 11 September 2001, and to combat all fo r ms of terrorism, in accorda nce with its

re s p o ns i b i l i t ies under the Charter of the United Na t io ns. . . .

Resolution 1373 (2001)

The Security Council, . . .

R e a f f i r m i n g also its unequivocal conde m na t ion of the terrorist attacks which took

place in New York, Wa s h i ngton, D.C. and Pe n ns y l v a n ia on 11 September 2001, and

ex p re s s i ng its de t e r m i na t ion to pre v e nt all such acts, . . .

R e a f f i r m i n g t he inhe re nt rig ht of ind i v idual or collective self-de f e nce as re c o g n i z e d

by the Charter of the United Na t io ns as re i t e rated in re s o l u t ion 1368 (2001),

R e a f f i r m i n g t he need to combat by all me a ns, in accorda nce with the Charter of the

United Na t io ns, threats to int e r na t io nal peace and security caused by terrorist acts, . . .

C a l l i n g on States to work toge t her urge ntly to pre v e nt and suppress terrorist acts,

i nc l ud i ng through inc reased coopera t ion and full impleme nt a t ion of the re l e v a nt int e rna t io nal convent io ns re l a t i ng to terro r i s m ,

R e c o g n i z i n g t he need for States to compleme nt int e r na t io nal coopera t ion by taking

a dd i t io nal me a s u res to pre v e nt and suppre s s, in their territories through all lawful

me a ns, the fina nc i ng and pre p a ra t ion of any acts of terrorism, . . .

Ac t i n g u nder Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Na t io ns, . . .

2. D e c i d e s also that States shall: . . . (e) Ens u re that any person who participates in

t he fina nc i ng, planning, pre p a ra t ion or perpetra t ion of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is bro u g ht to justice and ens u re that, in add i t ion to any other me a s u re s

a g a i nst them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal of f e nces in do me st ic laws and re g u l a t io ns and that the punishme nt duly reflects the serio u s ness of suc h

t e r rorist acts; (f) Affo rd one ano t her the greatest me a s u re of assistance in conne c t io n

with criminal investig a t io ns or criminal pro c e e d i ngs re l a t i ng to the fina nc i ng or support

of terrorist acts, inc l ud i ng assistance in obtaining evide nce in their possession ne c e s s a r y

for the pro c e e d i ngs; . . . 

3. C a l l s upon all States to: . . . (b) Exc h a nge info r ma t ion in accorda nce with int e rna t io nal and do me s t ic law and cooperate on adm i n i s t rative and jud ic ial matters to prev e nt the commission of terrorist acts; (c) Coopera t e, particularly through bilateral and

mu l t i l a t e ral arra nge me nts and agre e me nt s, to pre v e nt and suppress terrorist attacks and

t a ke action against perpetrators of such acts; (d) Become parties as soon as possible to

t he re l e v a nt int e r na t io nal convent io ns and protocols re l a t i ng to terrorism, inc l ud i ng the

I nt e r na t io nal Convent ion for the Suppre s s ion of the Fina nc i ng of Te r rorism of 9 December 1999; (e) Inc rease coopera t ion and fully impleme nt the re l e v a nt int e r na t io nal conv e nt io ns and protocols re l a t i ng to terrorism and Security Council re s o l u t io ns 1269 (1999)

a nd 1368 (2001). . . . United States 

Institute of Pe a c e

1200 17th Street NW

Wa s h i ngton, DC 20036

For mo re info r ma t ion, see our 

website (www. u s i p . o rg), which has an

o n l i ne edition of this report cont a i n i ng

links to related websites, as well as

a dd i t io nal info r ma t ion on the topic.

SP E C I A L RE P O R T 7 8