Environmental terrorism

On September 11th, 2001, horrible terrorist acts took place in the United States, causing sever human casualties and environmental destruction. The American Airlines Flight 11, carrying 92 people from Boston to Los Angeles, crashed into the first World Trade Center’s (WTC) tower causing a large explosive. Eighteen minutes later, the United Airlines Flight 175, carrying 65 people flying from Boston to Los Angeles, tore through the second tower with an even larger explosion. Flight 77 flying from Dulles to Los Angeles, a Boeing 757, carrying 85 passengers, slammed into the West Side of the Pentagon. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was carrying forty-five people from Newark to San Francisco, crashed south of Pittsburgh. A group of terrorists, claimed Muslims were behind these acts of evil. There are no legal, religious, or any other bases to backup the killing of innocents and the destruction of civilization. Therefore, the mission of fighting the terrorism faces no opposition in the actual legal system, whether national and international. Accordingly, terrorist acts are condemned and terrorist groups were fought on the national and international levels. Despite this fight against terrorism, terrorist groups appear as strong and powerful as the States. Some times their act may cause catastrophic damage as destructive as the damage caused during the international armed conflict, which takes place between States. The traditional failure of the fight against terrorism and the possession of the terrorist groups of harmful powers and techniques raise the questions whether the actual legal system of fighting the terrorism is adequate, and whether the environment is secured enough in the fight against the terrorism? Responding these interrogations requires the examination of the roots of terrorism (Section One), the environmental effects of September 11th events (Section Two), the environmental law rules applicable on the acts (Section Three), the responsibility for acts of terrorist (Section Four), and what should be done to avoid any future acts of terrorism (Section Five). Examining the case of the September 11th attacks, against the United States territory, would not prevent the recall of some other examples that may be useful to clarify the acts of terrorism, our ideas, and proposals.

Section One The Route of the Terrorism

Efforts to define terrorism under international law have been going on for a long time. […] Yet, despite 15 U.N. conventions and two draft conventions dealing with various aspects of terrorism – including hijacking, bombing, piracy, assassination, hostage taking, and biological, chemical and nuclear warfare – the international community has yet to settle on a single definition of “terrorism.”

The absence of such settlement can be attributed to the difference of ideologies, ethics, and religious that member States of the U.N. use as a pretext to oppose any definition affecting their political goals. Based on the culture, background, or the misinterpreted religious orders, the interpretation of the terrorism definition may be varied. In the time that an act may considered as terrorist act in a part of the world it may be interpreted as an act of heroism in another part of the world. Every sovereign state reserves to itself the political and legal authority to define terrorism in the context of domestic and foreign affairs. For example, most of Islamic and Arab nations view suicide bombing in Israel as acts of heroism, meanwhile, Israel and most of the western country consider such acts as terrorism. Similarly, Israeli attacks, under the pretext of self-defense pretext, against Hizbollah Guerrilla basis in South Lebanon is considered by most of the Islamic and Arab nations as acts of terrorism, however, it is interpreted by Israel and most of western countries as a right of self-defense. This difference can almost disappear if such tentative takes place within regional organization that assembles similar, if not identical, ideologies, ethics and religious backgrounds. Therefore, this type of organizations successfully defined terrorism. For example, Article 1 (2) of the Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Combating International Terrorism of 1999, defines terrorism as

any act of violence or threat thereof not withstanding its motives or intentions perpetrated to carry out an individual or collective criminal plan with the aim of terrorizing people or threatening to harm them or imperiling their lives, honor, freedoms, security or rights or exposing the environment or any facility or public or private property to hazards or occupying or seizing them, or endangering a national resource, or international facilities, or threatening the stability, territorial integrity, political unity or sovereignty of independent States.

In a remarkable step, the OIC, besides defining the terrorism, includes the act of exposing the environment to hazards as act of terrorism. In general, defining the terrorism in domestic law also does not raise the question of ideological, ethic, or religious differences. The Department of Defense (DoD) defines the terrorism as “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Acts of terrorism can take place by hijacking planes, destroy building by using conventional techniques such as explosions, use arms of mass destruction, killing innocent people, deliberately polluting natural resources, or threatening to commit any of these acts. Simply, the terrorism can be defined as violence, or a threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. It is notable that most of the definitions agree on the same elements to describe an act as terrorism. Both the effective harms and threat to affecting human lives and the environment are considered as acts of terrorism, where a real and effective harm occurred within the U.S., buildings were demolished, human lives were ended, and the natural environment was polluted. Most terrorists threat to commit their crimes, if they realize their threat then their act can be classified under the previous category. Even if they did not realize their threat they still considered terrorists. The acts occurred on September 11th are considered as acts of effective terrorism. For example on “November, 1977, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed an extortionist threat to place a deadly botulism poison in the Miami, Florida, water supply unless a demand for a 1.6 million dollar payment was met.” Another example is the threats, issued by AlQaeda spokesman after the events of September 11th, of targeting Americans and Jewish, hijacking more planes and the destroying more high buildings, possible using of weapons of mass destruction. These threats can stand alone as acts of terrorism by themselves

There is no legal difference between committing an act of terrorism and the threat to commit such act, where both are subject to the same rules, produce fearful among the nation and cause considerable economic losses. The preventive measures took by the American authorities coast the budget considerable amounts of money. However, environmentally, the difference between the effective terrorism and the threat of terrorism is that when an act of terrorism is committed, both humans and the environment are direct victims. But when there is only a threat of terrorist act, the fear and horror only will affect the population, there will be no harm to the environment.

Some times the use of force or the threat of use of force acts can be legal if committed under legal pretexts such as the self-determination or self-defence. For example, Article 2 (a) of the

Islamic Convention on Combating International Terrorism states that “[p]eoples’ struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” However, the distinction between self-determination or self-defense and terrorism is subject to disagreement. Some act may be interpreted as terrorism in parts of the world, they may be interpreted as heroism in another parts of the world. To resolve this disagreement, in a first step, an international conference should take place, assemble, not the governmental representatives but, representatives of all the different nations, ethics, religions backgrounds, to discuss and adopt an acceptable international definition of the terrorism. In a second step, this definition has to be examined by the United Nations General Assembly who should require member States to take the necessary procedures in view to adopt such definition in their national laws. If such definition, nationally and internationally, was adopted any future conflict regarding the definition of the terrorism would not take place any more. And if such conflict ever take place the last word would be for the adopted definition.

The need for international efforts to adopt an accepted definition for the terrorism and intensive international procedures to fight the terror was increased after the events of September 11th. These efforts should have had place longtime ago, especially after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which has a sophisticated arms that has been exposed in the black market. Terrorists were the frequent customers of this market. And terrorists increasingly became “interested in mass destruction,” which is a real threat to human life and the environment. For long time, the international community neglected the threat of the terrorism, which increase the effect that terrorist groups may cause to human life and the environment. For example, a number of incidents took place in the last few years, and were very fearful, such as the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, the Tokyo Subway Sarin gas attack in 1995, the detonation of the American Navy Warship in Yemen in October 12, 2000, the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001.

Most of the terrorist acts were based on a religious orders’ misinterpretation. For instance, the reputation of Islam was affected by the events of September 11th, and that based on the fact that all the hijackers were proclaimed Muslims. Accordingly, the Muslim nation was subject to acts of harassment in the United States and most of the Western Europe countries. But only a few exceptional Americans and Western Europeans committed such acts, as well as only exceptional Muslims committed acts of terrorism. Furthermore, the American President George W. Bush and his Cabinet fought any tentative of connection between Islam and the acts of September 11th, criminalizes any act of harassment “hate crime,” against Arab or Muslims, and so did the British Prime Minister, Tony Blaire. Similarly, most of the Muslim leaders condemned the attacks, committed in the name of Islam, against the United States, and furthermore, offered their full cooperation to fight the terror.

In fact, Islam is a religion that prohibits killing innocent people, destroying property and requires the protection of the environment as well. Islam clearly stands against terrorism, when providing in the holy Koran that “[Muslims should]not aggress, God dislike aggressors.” Moreover, Koran, as a main source of Islamic rules and principles, provides that “God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers.” On the other hand, Prophet Mohammed classified the crime of murdering innocent people as second major sin. People who commit such sin are excluded from god forgiveness. The Prophet Mohammed warned “the first to be adjudicated in the day of resurrection will be the bloodshed.” And that confirmed the Islamic disapproval of murdering innocent people, under any circumstances, or in other meaning terrorist acts. Since the United States proved, during the last decade, its friendship with Muslim nations, when intervened in 1993, in Somali to assure arrival of food shipments to the right people in the operation of “restore the hope,” in 1991, to liberate Kuwait’s from the invader dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and in 1995, in the former Yugoslavia to protect Muslims from systematic genocide committed by the dictator of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic. And since most of Muslim nations have signed bilateral conventions of friendship, protection or military cooperation with the United States, Muslims, according to the Islamic rules and principles, are prevented from attacking the United States, its citizens, or interests. The Koran provides that “therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no excuse to fight them.” The Prophet Mohammed himself confirmed this rule when provides that “Whoever has killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance is found for a span of forty years.” The Prophet Muhammad prohibited his soldiers from killing, under any circumstances, children when saying “[…]do not betray, do not be excessive, and do not kill a newborn child.” Following his steps, the first Muslim Caliph, Abu Baker, prohibited his army commanders from killing women, children, and elderly people.

The environment also accorded a considerable protection by the Islamic rules and principle. For example, the first Muslim Caliph, Abu Baker, prohibited his army from cutting trees that have green leaves, destroying buildings, killing sheeps or camels unless for eating, or burning or flooding palm trees. Even animals are benefiting from Islamic kindness and mercy. For example, the Prophet Mohammed warned that God would punish a person who causes an animal to die of starvation or thirst in the hell. The Prophet Mohammed also provided that “[Muslims], when slaughter an animal, have to sharpen the knife to reduce the animal’s suffering.”

All these examples are considered as Islamic rules and principles, which does not backup the acts of September 11th, and Islam cannot in any case be a base for such acts. Persons who committed such acts can only be brains washed, and who defend their acts based on misinterpreted Islamic rules. The acts of September 11th were committed by a group of claimed Muslims, called AlQaeda, which took from Afghanistan a location to plan their activities and train their personnel. AlQaeda is a group of fundamental Muslims, leaded by militant, exiled Saudi millionaire Osama Bin Laden, interpret the humanitarian principles of Islam in a wrongful way to serve their goals. On September 11, 2001, the terrorists committed the worst attacks ever in New York and Washington (D.C.), when four planes hijacked, two of them smashed into New York’s World Trade Center (WTC), and the third one rammed into the Pentagon. However, the fourth hijacked plane crashed south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, causing sever human and environmental damage.

Section Two The human and environmental effects of the September 11th attacks

If killing innocent people considered one of the horrid pictures of terrorism, environmental destruction is considered another malicious picture of terrorism. Therefore, the examination of the environmental effects in this paper will examine both environmental view, which includes humans as part of the environment, and any destruction to the environment is destruction to humans and vice versa. Most of terrorist activities affect in the same time humans and the environment, especially when terrorists use sophisticated arms that may causes widespread, long-lasting or severe environmental harm.

1) The Environmental Effects of the Terrorist Attacks

Nowadays, “terrorist weaponry has not been limited merely to guns and explosive devices,” where the hand of terrorists reaches modern technology, such as Depleted Uranium (DU,) chemical and biological devices. “[T]he House of Representatives Internal Security Subcommittee investigated the DoD’s policy of surplus explosives, and found that 26 million pounds have been sold to commercial applicants with almost no controls exerted over the sale. Apparently, some of these explosives have already found their way into the hands of the U.S. domestic terrorists.” AlQaeda is one of the terrorist groups that the American authorities believe they possess chemical and biological weapons. This theory was confirmed through simples was taken from sites suspected to be terrorist laboratories. For example, sand samples took from areas surrounding AlShifa facility in Sudan proved that lethal nerve agent VX and other chemical weapons components research were conducted in the facility. Another example is in November 2001, some military examination to certain caves, in Afghanistan, illustrated that researches were conducted by AlQaeda to produce chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons. And finally, Osama Bin Laden, the leader of AlQaeda himself, threatened that his group possesses arms of mass destruction and he will retaliate over a possible American use of similar weapons.

In few cases, terrorist groups already used weapons of mass destruction. For example, two attacks by the Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, involved weapons of modern technology. The first was in 1994, in Matsumoto, in the central highlands of Honshu, Japan, where nerve gas was used in a terrorist attack causing the death of seven civilians and injuring dozens more. The second attack was in 1995 in the Tokyo subway, caused twelve deaths and approximately 5,000 injured. Moreover, a Chechen guerrilla leader, Shamyl Bassayev, informed a Russian television network that four cases of radioactive cesium had been hidden around Moscow. The network discovered thirty-two kilograms of explosives placed in Moscow's Ismailovo Park.

Even if terrorists do not use weapons of mass destruction, they still threat the human life and the environment. For example, the explosion caused by AlQaeda’s attack to an American establishment located in Alkobar, Saudi Arabia, in 1996, when a powerful truck bomb tore through apartment buildings at U.S. Air Force complex in Saudi Arabia, killed at least 23 Americans and injured more than 300. The explosion was so powerful, and blasted a crater 35 feet deep and 85 feet across. The United States as well as Saudi Arabia have suffered casualties. AlQaeda also was behind the car bomb explosions took place outside the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar El Salaam, Tanzania, on August 7, 1998, which wounded 4,500 people, killed twelve Americans and 200 or more Kenyans and Tanzanians, and severely destroyed both buildings. There is no doubt that the surrounding environment was affected from such explosion and the buildings’ destruction and burning.

Another example is AlQaeda’s attack of October 12, 2000, against the American Navy’s Warship USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden, Yemen. The explosion caused various human causalities when seventeen United States Navy sailors were killed, as well as environmental harm to the Gulf itself. Nevertheless, the involved countries and the international community ignored the environmental damage that resulted from such explosion to the marine environment of the Gulf of Aden, its ground, and marine lives. And there is no assessment to be used against the terrorists for their crimes against the environment.

The forecited attacks were committed against the United States, outside its territory. However, the September 11th acts committed by AlQaeda in the United States mainland, and causing severe environmental effects. What increased the harmful of the environmental effects of the September 11th events is that the entire world saw on the air the second airplane when crashed into the second tower while the first tower was on fire, the horrible view of fearful civilians running in the street, and some others were jumping from the 110 stories towers hoping to survive, they also watched both towers when collapsed, and, up to the moment of preparing this paper, the daily scenes of the workers who cleanup the site from the rebels occasionally finding human bodies. These scene makes the tragedy of the September 11th the worst ever.

It is the worst, despite the fact that the twin towers were not on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) list, they are considered a historical architectural sites in New York City, each contained 110 stories, and their destruction, even if it does not violate the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, but destroyed landmarks of the nation’s bride. The effect of such crime goes beyond destroying landmark buildings, human lives were lost, and others were injured.

The planes crash in the twin towers killed all the 157 passengers and crew members. The explosions sent huge fireballs into the air and spread debris over the city. According to New York City officials, the death toll is 3,096. That figure includes 2,614 people who are missing and presumed dead, including the 157 on the two hijacked planes; 482 bodies have been identified. Debris from the collapse of concrete from the twin towers had damaged the surrounding buildings. Gas lines in the areas were affected as well. Flames shrouded the south side of the structure for thirty minutes before it fell. About “2,000 rescue workers have been moving debris at a rate of 3,000 cubic yards a day, but estimated 2 million cubic yards remains.” When they tunnel into “the pile,” as the wreckage has become known, “it lets in more air and often has the effect of feeding oxygen to the smoldering fires and hot debris.” Further massive environmental impacts resulted from September 11th attacks. For instance, the asbestos, pulverized concrete dust, burning plastic, sediment, glass, and the chemical products of combustion, including materials such as rubber, and paper are sprayed after the attacks in the surrounded environment, and washed into the Hudson River surrounding New York during the heavy precipitation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reports, toxic chemicals such as dioxins, PCBs, benzene, lead and chromium have been detected in the soil and air around the rubble of the WTC at levels exceeding federal safety standards. These substances can irritate the lungs, trigger asthma attacks and otherwise aggravate lung conditions, as well as irritate the eyes, nasal passages and throat. Allergists do not believe asbestos is a significant health hazard beyond the very immediate center of the recovery effort. The irritants in the dust can combine with other allergens in the air to make patients with lung conditions and allergies especially sick, allergists warned. They also urged those with asthma or other chronic lung diseases to wear good quality masks and consult with their physicians quickly if they experience new or worsening respiratory symptoms. It has been also reported by the CNN that the reported cases of West Nile Virus victims were increased fifty percents since September 11 attacks. Future assessments will necessarily show that even surrounded environment has been also harmed, some species may die or immigrate.

The Pentagon crashed airplane killing all the 64 passengers and crew members. The five-sided building suffered heavy damage, with a portion of the structure collapsing. This building is considered as an American landmark, and a bride of the American nation. Inside the Pentagon, 125 were dead, and 76 were wounded. Witnesses reported that smoke could be seen miles away. The crash of the fourth plane left no alive among the 45 crew members or the passengers. The crash of this airplane caused the less environmental casualty. Beside human casualty, the same liquids and gases that affected New York would pollute the site where the airplane crashed, but unfortunately, this crash does not have had the same concern and attention as those of New York and Washington D.C. There was no assessment for the number of the trees that has been burned, the natural resources around the site, the wild animals that have been affected, or even the level of the pollution in the soil. If the armed forces were chosen as a method to defeat the terrorism, this method will cause human casualties and environmental damage as well. This fact was proven through the previous cases of military responses against terrorism activities.

2)The Environmental Effects of Striking Back over Terrorism:

The 1998 American warplanes attack some sites classified as Bin Laden training camps Afghanistan, and El Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory, in Sudan, which was also suspected as a source of production or transfer of gas chemical weapons and their precursors. The United States knew that the site was used for producing chemical gases and weapons, from the soil sample taken from the factory’s ground by an agent. Thus, the attack clearly risked great environmental damage, and could result in the release of a deadly cloud of gas. Similarly, the strike against Taliban and AlQaeda terrorist group in Afghanistan, on October 7, 2001, used several kind of military techniques, including P 52 bombers, which would necessarily cause collateral damage of humans and to the environment as well. Moreover, they used the Daisy Cutter bomb, weighting 1,500 LB over Tora Bora Mountains where they believe that Osama Bin Laden is hidden. The use of such bomb would cause psychological effect, over the human life in the targeted areas as well as the natural environment. The environmental effects of such weapons would be sever, and will last decades. The future generations of Afghanistan will suffer from unexploded ammunitions. Few military personnel of the United States were the casualties of the striking back over the terrorists, but the number of Afghanistan casualties is much greater. The United States lost one of its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel who killed in the Mazare-Sharif prison’s revolt. Three more American soldiers were killed and nineteen others were injured by friendly fire, when a 2,000-pounds bomb mistakenly targeted their site. More than 100 Taliban fighter were killed in Mazar-e-Sharif prison revolt. As long as, the United States still attacking Afghanistan, and still AlQaeda members believe to possess weapons of mass destruction, risk to increase the risk of the use of such weapons or their explosion under the American attacks, which will present greater threat to the human life and natural environment.

Reprisal actions through military forces should not be considered as a primary choice, because it would harm human lives and the environment as much as it can be harmed by the acts of terror itself. Therefore, fighting the terrorism should adopt preventive measures as a first step, especially when the intelligence authorities possessed basic information about possible terrorist attacks. The United States in fighting the terrorism failed to comply with this stage. The United States possessed intelligence information, received threats, and some of the threats occurred against the United States interests abroad in the Gulf of Aden, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi and Kenya, and all what it did was targeting few sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. However, if some of the procedures took place after the September 11th were adopted earlier in stead of attacking Afghanistan and Sudan, the attacks of September 11th would not take place. In a second step, the international community, long time before any act of terrorist take place, should unify to impose economic sanctions over the terrorists such as AlQaeda, and their host

countries such as Afghanistan. The acts of terrorism should be fought by the international community whatever the level of their harm, and not only react if the harm is severe, long lasting, and widespread, because terror start small and end up very huge. For example, none of the present procedures to fight AlQaeda were taken after the attacks against the United States interests in the WTC in 1993, Saudi Arabia in 1996, Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, and U.S.S. Cole in 2000. If the terrorist threats were seriously taken, the dramatical events of September 11th would not taken place. Preventing terrorist activities from occurred is a much important and delicate task. However, succeeding in such task would avoid our generation from living a dramatical-armed conflict under the pretext of fighting the terror, as happening in the present time in Afghanistan, and avoid the future generation to suffer the effects of armed conflicts or even to involve in terrorist activities. Fighting always affects human lives and the natural environment. However, fighting a State is much easier task than fighting a group of terrorists connected without limitation of borders, mot of them citizens to different States. This difficulty does not present legal bases of harming and attacking unlimited number of nations, threatening the human lives and the environment there. The terrorists are always known, their camps and activities very easy to find, but very difficult to access. There are always States that involved in the terrorist activities, by supporting, harboring or financing them. Targeting those States by imposing the preventive measures and economic sanctions would weaken the terrorists, eliminate their activities, or make them harmless. It jumps to the mind the questions: why financial institutions, whether in the U.S. or abroad, were allowed to practice their activities according to the law, and suddenly, they were classified as assisting the terrorism. Why Arafat, the head of the Palestinian Authority, was treated as a peace partner and now, under the U.S, approval, is being targeted by Israel air strikes as harboring of terrorism. Do these information were not available prior to the September 11th attack, or these information becomes useful now since the victim is the United States and the damage are severe. Imposing the American sanctions over the Taliban in Afghanistan, with out sanctioning neighboring States that support them render the sanctions ineffective. Therefore, the international community should be much more restrict in imposing sanctions over Taliban, where these sanctions should target all uncooperative States, and those who support Taliban such as Pakistan. Even if the acts of terrorism took place, States still can fight the terror without harming human lives and the environment. After the 11 September, when the United States started its battle against the terrorism by fighting through long-term battle, reinforce the present economic sanctions and freeze the terrorist funds. In stead of recurring to massive military attacks that may cause another humanitarian and environmental losses, the U.S. adopted a developed measures to eliminate any terrorist activities in the future, or at least make them almost impossible. The United States declared that States have two choices only, whether to support the U.S. in it war against terror, or support the terror itself. The American President Bush signed an executive order to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists. Such procedures would be able to weaken the terrorist groups and eliminate their activities without causing any harm to innocent people or the environment. If these measures took place, without any side military activities in Afghanistan, terrorist activities will be eliminated, may be in longer period of time, but human lives and the environment would not be affected. The next Section will examine the principle of transboundary pollution prohibition as a main environmental law principle constituent the legal bases for the responsibility of terrorists and the harboring States.

Section Three Can the Transboundary Pollution Principle Govern the Terrorists of September 11th

The environmental law rules were subject to violation by the terrorist activities of Sept. 11th, which produced severe environmental damages. A significant number of environmental rules deal with the environmental effects of the September 11th terrorism crimes. The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism signed at Cairo, Egypt on April 22, 1998, accords to the environment considerable protection from terrorist attacks, when provides that terrorism is any act or threat of violence that aims “to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupy or seize them, or [aim] to jeopardize a national resource.” It also excludes the destruction of public property and public services from being considered as political crimes. Therefore, any environmental destruction, even if committed for political motives, should be subject to be interpreted as a terrorist offense. Since the terrorist activities of September 11th took place under the name of Islam, the attitude of the Islamic Conference Organization should be exposed. The Islamic Convention on Combating International Terrorism strongly excludes “[the] destruction of public properties and properties geared for public services […]” from being considered as political crimes even when politically motivated. Thus, environmental damage during any act of terrorism is considered a terrorist crime and is subject to this Convention’s provisions. This Convention not only considers that terrorism constitutes a severe violation of human rights in freedom and security, but also considers that damage to the environment caused as part of a terrorism act, including the destruction of public properties and public services is also a violation. This paper will focus only on the violation of the prohibition of the transboundary pollution. The principle of prohibition of transboundary pollution is the main environmental law principle that has been abrogated by the terrorism. How the interpretation of the transboundary pollution can be extended to include the terrorist activities under its jurisdiction. The State obligation to protect other States’ right to be aware of any transboundary pollution, including those resulted from acts of terrorism, is a principle of the environmental law. This principle was elaborated in the Stockholm Declaration, the Rio Declaration and the international case laws.

a) Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm on June 16, 1972, adopted a Declaration to protect the environment from any transboundary pollution. It requires nations not to harm another nation’s environment, when provides that States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limit of national jurisdiction.

Principle 21 recognizes the right of each State, without any interference from another nation, to capitalize on its resources, including hosting any activities on their territories. However, this right is restricted by a State’s mandatory responsibility not to harm another nation’s environment, and not to allow territories under their jurisdiction to do so. This principle is confirmed in the Rio Declaration. b) Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration

On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference in 1992, the United Nations sponsored the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Earth Summit adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Climate Change Convention, the Declaration of “non-binding” Principles on Forest Conservation, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration represents a restatement and reaffirmation of the Stockholm Declaration. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration iterates Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, reflecting a general principle of international law that is binding on all States. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration relevant to the Transboundary environmental damage is identical to Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. It provides that

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio declaration make it clear that States are responsible for acts committed on their territories, or under their jurisdiction, that harm the environment including the environment of other States. Accordingly, nations can be held responsible under those principles for any environmental damage caused by such activities. Establishing training camps in Afghanistan to train some Islamic groups does not interfere with the content of Principle 21. But starting from the moment that training activities harm other nation’s environment, by planning, training, financing, directing and celebrating acts of terrorism over other nations territory, then the responsibility for damages, including the environmental damage, may rise. It would be useful to confirm that harm may occurred through effective terrorist activities as well as a threat of committing such activities. Despite the inclusion of Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration in non-mandatory instruments (declarations), their content is generally accepted to be a restatement of a general principle of international law. General principles are binding on all States. The U.S. agrees that it shall be bound by principle 21 and Principle 2 as well. c) International Case Law The responsibility for transboundary pollution principle was first elaborated in the Trail Smelter Case. The Trail Smelter rule has been widely accepted as a statement of customary international law generally applicable to cases of pollution, including media other than air. The Court stated that under the principles of international law “no State has the right to use or permit the use of territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein.” Thus, as a result of the emission of sulphur dioxide by the smelters of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company activities, Canada was held liable for the damages produced in the State of Washington by pollution, engendered by the discharge of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. The ICJ reaffirmed the same obligation when examined the Corfu Channel Case. In this case, the Court concluded that it is “every State’s obligation not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.” In 1972, the Stockholm Declaration and Rio Declaration incorporated the Corfu Channel standard, when respectively Principle 21 and Principle 2 prohibits States from allowing their territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other nations. The Taliban harboring of the AlQaeda camps, offering them the protection and support, and refusing to destroy theirs camps is violation to the rules of law that were established by the precedents case law. These legal bases will hold any source State responsible for environmental damage crossing its borders and harming other nation’s environment.

Section Four The Responsibility for Acts of Terrorism

Causing environmental pollution to other nation’s environment, in contradiction to the prohibition of transboundary pollution principle can provide a legal base for addressing State’s responsibility. Environmental damage resulted from acts of terrorism can rise two kinds of responsibility, international responsibility of the State, and criminal responsibility of the terrorists. The application of the transboundary pollution over terrorist activities will enlarge the domain of the actual system of responsibility to include terrorists as a kind of pollution. 1) The State Responsibility for Transboundary Pollution of Terrorism International responsibility of the State can base on the State fault, which called fault responsibility, and can stand without fault, which called strict or absolute liability. A) Fault Responsibility In terrorist crimes four patterns of fault can be attributed to a State in view to be held responsible for humanitarian and environmental effects of terrorism: (1) Harboring the Terrorism Against the State’s Will:

Terrorist activities can take place over a State territory and against the State will. Terrorist may use the State’s territory to train and conduct researches to produce weapons of mass destruction, in view to harm other nation’s environment. In this case, the harboring State will not be held internationally responsible unless it opposes the international efforts to fight the terrorism. Otherwise, if it fought the terrorism and facilitate the international community’s mission in fighting the terror, by allowing the use of its territory and military bases, provides military, economic and financial contribution to fight the terror, then there will be no legal stand for its international responsibility. For example, Indonesia fought the piracy acts occurred in the Strait of Malacca, and encouraged United States operation that took place in Indonesian territorial sea in the Strait of Malacca. Here there will be no legal bases to hold Indonesia responsible for the acts of piracy that took place in its territorial sea. Another example, when the U.S. undeliberately has allowed AlQaeda to have bases in its territory, trained them in its own flying schools, using its own airplanes. Again, there was no American cooperation with terrorist, but in contrast their activities were against the U.S. laws and against the government will, which formed international coalition, provide military and financial contribution to fight the terror in Afghanistan. Therefore, there will be no legal bases for the United States international responsibility for hosting the terrorism, especially before States who lost citizens in the events, because the planning and executed were conducted in the United States territory but in violation of its national laws. Moreover, being the most affected nation in the terrorist activity would exclude any possible cooperation with the terrorists. Final example is the Islamic Group of Separates leaded by the militant Abu Saiyaf, which practice terrorism within the national jurisdiction of Philippines, but against the Philippines laws. The government of Philippines fights the terrorist group of Abu Sayyaf without being able to capture or eliminate their terrorist activities. Moreover, after the terrorist activities of September 11th, the President of Philippines came to visit the American President George W. Bush in his efforts to fight the terror and requesting his support to eliminate terrorist activities in her country.

(2) Undeliberately and Negligently States Harboring the Terrorism:

Some countries know that there are terrorists on its land and it could arrest them, but it does not do that because it is not taking it seriously. Here, the negligence is considered a legal basis for States responsibility. An example of negligence is the U.S. attitude prior to the September 11th attacks. The Unites States administration has received serious threats, and was subject to a much less dangerous terrorist attacks from AlQaeda, but does not take it seriously, and was satisfied with attacking two sites in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998. Here, the State can be held responsible for its negligence, since it could arrest the terrorists but it did not take it seriously, until the terrorists find a good time and place to commit their crimes. In this case, the negligence of the State stands behind the terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks could be prevented in earlier stages, if the State was serious, follows the terrorists, and arrests them. Despite the standing of the State responsibility, State could minimize its responsibility by joining the international efforts in fighting the terrorism.

(3) States Passive Assistance to Terrorist Activities:

Unfortunately, some States know that terrorists groups are based on their territory, training, or conducting researches to produce arms of mass destruction, but they are passive, and look the other way. In the occurrence case, the passive attitude of the State should be considered as a fault, and the State’s responsibility is base on the fact that, in a certain time, it was able to stop or eliminate the risk of terrorist activities, but its negligence undeliberately prepare the climate and the suitable circumstances for the terrorists to commit their crime. This is like the situation in most of the Arab and Islamic countries, such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They knew that some of the charity money is going to help terrorists but, as a maximum measure to fight the terror, they may criticize such actions only. Moreover, they knew that certain number of their citizens traveling to Afghanistan to fight with AlQaeda, and never tried to prevent them or held them accountable. These countries, in view to avoid internal insurgency, take passive attitude to equilibrate between the international obligations to fight the terrorism and the population sympathy with some of the terrorists’ reasons. Here, the State can be responsible for its passivism, since it turns the other way and undeliberately nourish the terrorism and provide it with all the needs to live and spread out all over the globe. Despite the passive attitude that hold these States internationally responsible, States can avoid such responsibility by cooperating with the international efforts to arrest the perpetrators and bring them to justice. For example, after the September 11th, Kuwait avoided such responsibility by joining the international efforts in fighting the terrorism, where suspected accounts were frozen in Kuwait, intelligent information were shared with the concerned States, the citizenship of AlQaeda Spokesman, Suleiman Abu-Ghaith, was withdrawn, and number of young Kuwaitis were recently prevented from traveling to Afghanistan, detained and investigated. All these procedures prove that the Kuwaiti assistance of terrorism was undeliberated, and new procedures were useful and major in eliminating any future terrorist activities, which should shield Kuwait from international responsibility in assisting the terrorism.

(4) Deliberately Harboring the Terrorists:

Harboring the terrorist is a new term that has been used, after the September 11th terrorist acts, by the American President Bush. It became frequent and one of the international law term. In another occasion the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, used the same term to describe the attitude of the PLO in hosting some Islamic groups that look to achieve their goal in destroying the State of Israel. When State deliberately harbors the terrorism, helps and hides them, it can be held responsible for such acts, because it violates the rules of international law regarding the fight against the terrorism. Like the Taliban regime, in Afghanistan, they hosted AlQaeda members, provide them with their needs, exchange with them intelligence information, train together and even fight together. There is tentative to compare the PLO attitude to the attitude of the Taliban regime. These tentative are based on the fact that Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Group, declared its responsibility for most of the suicide bombing operation in Israel, especially the recent ones that took place on December 1 and 13, 2001, and killed twenty-six civilian and injured hundreds. The position of President Yasser Arafat was described similar the position of Mulla Omar the Chief of Taliban where the first is harboring Hamas and the Islamic Jihad Group and the second harboring AlQaeda. In this situation, the State is internationally responsible, and its responsibility along with the terrorists’ responsibility. Since without Afghanistan’s help, AlQaeda terrorist group will not find a place to train their personnel or to plan their crimes. Despite this responsibility, the State may reduce its international responsibility, and begins a new era, by joining the international community’s efforts in the fight against the terrorism. For example, Taliban had a chance before the military operation to respond to the American President’s requests by destroying the terrorist training camps, handing over AlQaeda leaders to be judges before the United States Justice, and to release the western relief workers that are detained in Afghanistan. If they did so their responsibility will stand only for the portion of the damages that are not covered by the terrorists themselves. Similarly, Chairman Arafat had the chance to avoid the late Israeli military strikes of December, 2001, by proceeding earlier detention of suspected terrorists listed in Israeli lists provided to Arafat long time ago. However, there is a big difference between the attitude of Arafat and Taliban, the first started to join the international efforts to fight the terrorism, but Taliban continue to refuse such adhesion. Despite this attitude, Israel continues to declare that such procedures are too much too late, and disconnect any official contact with Arafat. Since the question whether certain act is considered an act of terrorism or heroism is subject to great confrontation between nations, would this confrontation shield perpetrators from being accountable for violence and threat of violence? The respond is negative, and States that harbors those heroes can be held responsible too, but on different legal base.

B) Absolute Responsibility

It is time to predominate peace over the globe. Peace cannot predominate without holding each State responsible for the activities that conducted under its jurisdiction, whether legal or illegal. Acts of force committed within the nations territory from its own citizen should not be subject to international responsibility. For example, terrorist activities committed by the Spain separatists group, as long as it does not harm other nation’s interests, citizens or the environment, should not be subject to the international efforts to fight the terrorism. This kind of activity should be subject to the internal laws of the State, and other States should not intervene in the internal affairs of the State. Other States can intervene only if such activities were expanded beyond the States borders or threats other nations’ interests, citizens, or environment. The terrorist activities of AlQaeda did not present a legal base for international military action against Afghanistan only when such activities harmed other nations interests, and environment. Principle 21 of the Stockholm and Principle 2 of the Rio were general about the source of activity that cause transboundary pollution, so it can be illegal and legal as well. The absolute responsibility is a great bases to eliminate the confrontation between different ideologies regarding what can be considered as terrorist act that held States responsible and the heroic acts that are considers as nations right. In both cases, since terrorist acts damage other nation’s environment, State that was the source of these acts should be held internationally responsible, because it is incapable to prevent such acts from harming other nations humans and environment. For example, without discussing the issue of Palestinian right of self-determination, and oppose the occupation, the Organization of Liberation Palestine (OLP), as a legal representative of the Palestinians, should be held responsible for acts committed against Israel, even if they claim that they are practicing the right of self-determination, because diplomacy is the only way of resolving international questions. Act of force should be limited within the territories supervised by the OLP, and only the diplomacy should be shown beyond these territories. Similarly, since certain proves pointing that most of the terrorists of September 11th were trained in Afghanistan, then the acts committed in Afghanistan (training) under any legal or illegal pretext, harmed other nation’s environment, such as the United States of America, is enough element to hold the Afghani government internationally responsible for the transboundary pollution. As a result of the responsibility, State may be subject to international sanctions, whether imposed by international organization or the coalition of States. The international community may make pressure over the responsible State by imposing international sanctions, military action, and finally may require restitution, rehabilitation, and compensation.

a) International Sanctions

The international sanctions are legal measures used by the international community to enforce the rules of law. They can be defined as “measures taken against one or more countries to force a change in policies, or at least to demonstrate a country's opinion about the other’s policies.” International sanctions might be used under the umbrella of an international organization or by a group of affected States. Adopting international sanctions by an international organization would give these sanctions wide international approval. The Security Council of the United Nations has the power to impose sanctions over States harboring the terrorism. For example, according to powers accorded to the Security Council of the United Nations, it imposed international sanctions over States suspected to harbor and assist the terrorism, such as Resolutions No. 748/1992 and 883/1993, imposed sanctions over Libya to hand over suspected terrorists in blowing up the Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. However, imposing international sanction by a State or a group of affected States, without being approved by an international organization, could be subject to international argument. It is the right of each State, without any restriction, to design the level and nature of its foreign relations with other States. The State has the right to indicate the level of diplomatic relations, commercial exchange, cultural and military relations with other States. However, according to the international principle of equal treatment, the suspected State has the right to respond with similarly procedures. In response to the evidences linking Libya to the December 27, 1985 Rome and Vienna bombings, the United States imposed economic sanctions over Libya. The United States also imposed sanctions over Iran, which was involved in terrorist activity against Americans, and providing a great support to Hizbollah in South Lebanon, which is classified as terrorist group in the United States. International sanctions affect the country’s system. But some experienced sanctions proved that the second class of the population is the most affected by the international sanctions, meanwhile the suspected terrorists and their supporters of the government do not suffer from the effects of the sanctions. This the case of Iraq, where the criminals who commit terror activities during the occupation of Kuwait do not suffer any loss from the sanctions, and their leader Saddam Hussein still building new palaces and exaggerating in celebrating his birthday parties. Afghanistan was subject to the U.N. sanctions since 1999, when Taliban insisted not to hand over Osama Bin Laden. The Security Council imposes sanction over Taliban regime by it Resolution No. 1267/1999. These sanctions were intensified by the Security Council Resolution No. 1333/2000. None of these procedures were effective to affect the Taliban ability to harbor AlQaeda. But once the act of terrorism was committed and the damages were occurred, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 1373/2001 to eliminate the terrorism funding to AlQaeda. This Resolution worked, not because it adds new elements in the fight against the terrorism, but because the victim was honorable and strong State and the damages were severe. Despite the ineffectiveness of some international sanctions they are less harmful to the humans and the environment than the use of military force.

b) Military Action

As a result of being victim to an act of terrorism, States have the right to use military force, unilaterally or mutually, under the pretext of individual or collective defense. Moreover, international organizations can use military forces to enforce the rules of international law. The United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are the most involve international organizations in the military operations. Some States, when refuse to comply with the international law rules, do not give the international community any choice only to use the force against them. For example, on April 15, 1986, the United States bombarded some training camps in Libya, in view to express its opposition to the Libyan support and finance to some Palestinian terrorist groups, such as the Front Popular for the Liberation of Palestine and Abu Nidal Organization, and its role in explosion that took place in Germany, in a discotheque frequented by American servicemen. Finally, after the events of September 11th, the American President, George W. Bush, required from the Taliban regime to destroy the terrorism camps in Afghanistan, hand over the leaders of AlQaeda and to release the aid workers detained in Afghanistan. Non of these requirements were voluntarily met by the Taliban government, which let no choice before the American Administration only to use the armed forces The American military operation in Afghanistan started October 7, 2001, and lasted up to the moment of preparing this paper. Military force was succeeded to achieve most of the requirements imposed prior to the military action, the training camps were completely destroyed, the aid workers were released, and AlQaeda members whether killed, arrested or under the run. However, most of the AlQaeda and Taliban, including Mulla Omar and Osama bin Laden, were not been captured. Once the harboring States voluntarily or under the international pressure comply with the international will, the terrorists were arrested or killed, who will be responsible for the restoration coasts of the humans lives and environment that were targeted by the terrorist activity.

c) Restitution, Reparation and Compensation for the Aftermath

Once the responsibility proved against the States under any of the forecited pretexts, it has to face the financial responsibility for the damage that caused by the acts of terrorism. As a result of the international responsibility, States, after stopping the violation voluntary or under the international pressure, should satisfy, restitute and/or compensate for the damage of the terrorism. According to the nature of State involvement in the terrorist activity, the satisfaction would be varied, destroying of training camps, closing terrorist financial institution, freezing terrorist assets, handing over suspected terrorists, and/or apology. In the acts of terrorism no apology can be accepted only if the suspected State undeliberately was assisting the terrorists and positively modify its attitude to join the international efforts in the fight against the terror. Otherwise, if the State deliberately assist, finance, harbor, protect the terrorists and refuses to comply with the international community’s requirements to eliminate the terrorist activities under its jurisdiction, then there will be no place for the apology. Restitution is the best measure that should take place after cracking down of the terrorism. Restitution as the best measure to protect the environment, it can reestablish the nation’s bride. For example, cleaning up the ground zero in New York, Pentagon, St. Petersburg, and rebuilding the WTC twin towers and the Pentagon damaged side would stand as an American sign for any future tentative of terrorism, remind any person of the end of Taliban, AlQaeda and any other future terrorists. Finally, in view to repair and relief the harm that caused by the terrorist activity, compensations should be transmitted to the damaged party. The U.S. acknowledges that compensation is the preferred and practical form of reparation, and it has a priority over restitution in practice. “Securing compensation for an injured party is an undisputed objective of liability principles. Indeed, compensation defines the essence of the classic tort case, in which the injured party sues the allegedly responsible party for monetary damage to recover direct expenses or losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, diminished property values, or non-monetary reparation such as oil spill cleanup or a revegetation areas.” Transmitting the monetary compensation requires time, to find out the involved parties in such crime, to enforce harboring State to admit responsibility for such acts, and finally to collect the requested compensation. That does not mean that the environment and the site of the terrorist act should last destroyed, polluted and full of human bodies until compensations received, but the State can Start directly to clean up and rebuild the affected sites. Both the terrorists and the involved States, every one according to his responsibility, should pay the charge’s bill of the cleanup and reconstruction. Wealthy States, like the United States, are capable to finance the cleanup and rebuilding charges, some other State may do not have the financial ability to finance these charges, does that mean that their environment should last polluted and destroyed until receiving the compensation. Surely no, where frozen assets of terrorists around the world can be used to finance these operations of rescuing the environment. Fighting the terrorism without capturing the terrorist themselves and held them responsible risk to enhance a future terrorist activities. Therefore, capturing the terrorists and criminalize them in view to be locked in jail is a major task in fighting terrorism. 2) The Criminal Responsibility of the Terrorists The terrorists can be subject to criminal responsibility within the international legal system as well as the internal. a) International Criminal Responsibility

International criminal rules can be applied over terrorists whenever they commit a crime that has international characters in violation of international instruments such as attacking an international organization’s building, using unlawful techniques and methods of war, attacking civilians and civil objects, destroying internationally protected sites and monuments. These acts can be classified in international law as war crime, crime against peace, or crimes against the humanity. The international community should cooperate to respond to terrorist acts, by considering such acts as war crimes, rather than treating them as crimes within the national criminal jurisdictions. It is war crime whether committed in peace time or in times of armed conflict, because even if it is committed in peacetime it is an act of war and would necessarily lead to an armed conflict. For example, the act of terrorism committed in September 11, 2001 against the United States led to the war in Afghanistan. So there is no reason to exclude terrorist activities of peacetime from being defined as war crimes. Committing war crime requires submitting the perpetrators to the jurisdiction of ad hoc or permanent international tribunals. In the present time, there is no ad hoc tribunal that has jurisdiction over terrorist activities committed against the U.S. But, there is no legal obstacle to establish one by the United Nations Security Council, to judge the suspected terrorist according to the law of war, and to avoid any request of different governments to prosecute their citizens involved in AlQaeda. Despite the absence of such ad hoc tribunal, the International Criminal Court has competence to prosecute crimes of war. However, the dilemma here is that the United States is not yet ratifying the Statute of the ICC, which exclude the right of the court to examine questions involve non member States. Therefore, the United States should ratify the Statute of the ICC as soon as possible to give the court jurisdiction to prosecute terrorist for committing war crimes. But, it seems that the U.S. seeks to prosecute the terrorists of September 11th and all AlQaeda members under U.S. military commission. From the previous examination of the terrorism, the international character to the terrorism is predominated, which excluded the national jurisdiction of any State, including the United States, from examining such matter. Practically, States witness acts of terrorism react based on its national security and protection of its own nation, and give themselves the priority right to prosecute and punish the perpetrators according to their national jurisdiction.

b) Internal Criminal Responsibility

The internal criminal responsibility of the terrorist can be argued by his State, States supporting the terrorist, or by the State who claim jurisdiction over his prosecution. It is agreed that no State should protect terrorists, even if they are its citizens, in order to prevent terrorists from finding safety in “sympathetic States” that are unwilling to prosecute them despite the international pressure. The difference between States legal system may reflect on the terrorist conviction and the nature of his punishment, where he might be freed or convicted in a symbolic punishment. In contrast, under the pressure of being victim of an act of terrorism, the State may ignore the terrorist rights provided in its national legal system, prosecute outside the cadre of its judicial system, or punish without prosecution. Therefore, such crime should be submitted to an international jurisdiction, prosecutes publicly under the rules of the international law, with assuring all the rights will be granted. Since the existing legal structures often allow perpetrators to avoid punishment, victims to remain without a remedy and the environment to be left wrecked the United States decided to bring perpetrators to justice or bring justice to them. After the September 11th terrorist activities, the United States formed military commission to try and prosecute terrorists involved in this tragedy. Some argued that the establishment of such commission to try terrorist includes violation and express unconfidence in the judicial system of the United States to deal with such crimes. The American administration believes that, until terrorist are exterminated, the United States remain in war, and in war military tribunals are competent to try the enemy. Furthermore, trying the terrorists on the American soil threaten the United States safety to be subject to future terrorist activities seeking the free of the terrorists. Certainly, terrorist activities should not be dealt as a regular crime, “bank robbery or a homicide […] It should be dealt with by military force […].” But, that does not mean the exclusion of terrorist judicial rights. And since there are fears from prosecuting according to the American legal system, an international court should have the jurisdiction over such crimes. The most critical part in the military commission is that such commission has jurisdiction over foreigners only. Horrible terrorist activities can occur by citizens of the United States, such as the explosion of federal building in Oklahoma by Timothy McVeigh. The situation got worst when an American was fighting beside AlQaeda, who will be excluded from the competence of the commission because he is not foreigner. Here, the same crime is committed in partnership between two persons, one will be tried under the United States jurisdiction, one by the military tribunals without benefiting from most of the defense rights granted by the American legal system, and the second will benefit from these rights, and the difference based only on the citizenship. This will constitute a precedent for other States to prosecute their nationals under different rules of law than foreigner involved in terrorist activities. Prosecuting the terrorist is a mission that can be eased by different kind of support and cooperation of the international community. States can cooperate in prosecuting terrorists, or extraditing them to the competent State to prosecute them. Some time there exist disagreement regarding the extradition and the prosecution question. The host State do not trust the procedures in the victimized State and requires to prosecute them under its jurisdiction. Afghanistan offered to prosecute Osama bin Laden under its national jurisdiction, and punish him if convicted, which has been rejected by the U.S. Afghanistan, as Muslim country, should be subject to the Islamic Convention for Combating the Terrorism, which requires all the Contracting States to arrest perpetrators of terrorist acts and prosecute or extradite them. Article 3 (II)(B)(5) of the Convention encourages cooperation between the concerned organs in the member States, and citizens, in order to help uncover terrorists and arrest them. Under the international community’s pressure, Libya handed over the two Libyan nationals, who were suspected of conducting the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, to be prosecuted in the Netherlands, a neutral country, under the jurisdiction of the Scotch law. Recently, the three Scottish judges voted unanimously to find Al-Megrahi guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the second Libyan, Fhimah, was acquitted. Following the verdict against the two Libyans charged in the bombing William P. Barr, the attorney general said: “justice has been done in the case. But the main question is whether the criminal justice system is in itself the right response.” Similarly, Afghanistan refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the United States and proposed to try him before neutral Islamic tribunal in a neutral third country, which has been rejected by the U.S. in tow different occasions. The United States, instead of using the military force, risking the life of its military personnel, destroying the environment in Afghanistan, and causing human casualties, should have negotiated the offer, in view to prosecute Osama bin Laden under the jurisdiction of neutral State, such as Netherlands. What should be done to avoid future terrorist activities, assure the prosecution for terrorists and the faire trial?

Section Five What should be done to avoid future environmental effects of terrorism

To avoid any future terrorist activities, an international body should created within the United Nations to follow up the terrorist issues, lead the fight against such crime, prepare for the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators. This body should examine the world international problems, in view to provide and assist a quick and faire solution. For example, number of terrorist activities took place to express dissatisfaction for the way that the international community is dealing with this issue. Another number of activities occurred to express dissatisfaction towards the question of Irelands. The international community in view to final and satisfying settlement must intensively examine these questions and others more around the world. This settlement would increase the front fighting the terrorism, where involved parties in such question will participate in the fight, and cut the road for any one who uses these questions as pretext to commit violent acts against any nation. For example, if the Palestinian question is settled, the PLO, voluntarily and not under the Israeli threat, will intensively adhere to the international community to fight the terrorism, not allowing Osama Bin Laden to use the Question of Palestine as an excuse, and may send troops to fight beside the American military the battle against the terrorism. But now, most of the Palestinians, including Chairman Arafat’s Cabinet, even if they do not express their feelings, the are happy from rising the Palestinian issue by Osama Bin Laden. An international fund should be established, and funded through the frozen assets, international organization, States and individual donations. This fund should be established within the United Nation cadre to finance anti-terrorism operations, collect intelligence information about terrorist groups around the world, lead the efforts of fighting the terrorism, and requires annual reports of the State members regarding their efforts to fight the national and international terror, present its own commentary and other members commentary to suspected States and requires respond and positive action regarding these comments. This body would establish solid anti-terrorism relation between the United Nations members prior to any terrorist attack, assist each others to avoid, prevent ant eliminate it. The United Nations Security Council should stand behind its resolutions, to assure that they are met. Otherwise, the Security Council should intensify its procedures to assure certain resolution was completely executed. For example, if the Security Council took much serious steps to assure the full application of its Resolutions No.1267/1999 and 1333/2000, none of the events of September 11th would have place. The jurisdiction of prosecuting terrorists should be subject to an international convention to settle this question. For instance, the jurisdiction of the ICC should be extended to directly include terrorism crimes, instead of only consider them as war crimes. Until that time, the Security Council, similar to the ICTY and ICTY, should establish and ad hoc body to prosecute individual suspected to commit terrorist activities within AlQaeda group. And finally, using the force to fight the terrorism in the territory of States that not comply with the Security Council resolutions should be attributed only to the United Nations armed forces, who have the right to enforce the rules of international law, including the fight against terrorism. A victimized State when use military force to fight the terror may, under the influence of revenge, commit war crimes against the population and their environment, with out any supervision of the international community. However, the U.N. military forces will use their force to enforce the roles of law, not to punish the harboring nation and their environment. The U.N. military force will work under the directions of U.N. in which Afghanistan itself is member State, as well as Arab and Islamic nations, which will exclude any possibility of deliberate crime.

Conclusion:

Since international control over terrorist is absent, the international community should send a message to the terrorist groups around the world that the environment as well as the civil personnel and properties should be excluded from being victimized by their acts, otherwise they should lose any kind of support or protection. However, states, a s members of the international community, should be bound by the international and humanitarian rules protecting humans and the environment. Any act of reaction against terrorism should be taken in a safe and environmentally sound way. Humans casualties and environmental destruction should be minimized and avoid. International efforts in fighting the terrorism should be organized. A new international organization specialized in organizing the fight against terrorism should be created. An accepted definition of the act of terrorism should be adopted. A task of force specialized in armed intervention should be established. Another task of information collectors should be formed and given the power to access into financial system of each suspected nation. Exchange of information among nations should be reinforced. An international conference, to resolve all the international problems that have been used as pretext by the terrorists, should take place.