<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20211008-181445-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/os1-interventionism/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Afghanistan and Great Power Interventionism as Self-Defense</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>von Bernstorff, Jochen</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2021-10-08</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>9/11</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Non-Intervention</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Public International Law</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Right to Self-Defense</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>We are still in the process of assessing the outcomes of 20 years of Western military and humanitarian presence in Afghanistan, and of a heartless and chaotic withdrawal. The current and somewhat self-centred debates may obscure considerable collateral legal nihilism. My main argument is that the re-interpretation of Art. 51 UN Charter by the US in the context of the so called “war on terror” was (and still is) an attempt to re-introduce new legal justifications for old forms of great power interventionism.</dc:description>
</dc>
