Terrorism and just war tradition

Jason Gatliff argues that some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework. When evaluating any use of force, two questions need to be addressed: (1) was it appropriate to use force, and (2) was force used appropriately. It is within the scope of these two questions that most of the objections to terrorism arise. Gatliff argues that a terrorist act can meet the standards of a Just War. Gatliff shows how these standards can be met in response to two objections to terrorism, that terrorists lack the authority to make war, and that the random targeting of civilians renders terrorism unjustifiable. Gatliff approaches the first question from the perspective of a Lockean theory of individual sovereignty. Gatliff shows that the authority to use force rests with governments because that authority has been granted them by those individuals they govern. When governments fail to use their delegated authority appropriately, then individuals can once again exercise their rights. Gatliff deals with the second question, the appropriateness of intentionally targeting civilians, by arguing that many more members of the civilian population are combatants than most people realize. Gatliff argues that anyone who is dangerous in the martial sense, where the martial sense of dangerousness is understood as having one’s behavior purposely directed in support of military activities, is a combatant.