Malinowski, Marek M.2013-05-102013-05-102006Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 68, 2006, z. 1, s. 139-154.0035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/6193The US military operation “Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan being as a reaction to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 had not, contrary to the later invasion of Iraq in March 2003, triggered off such a heated political and legal debate as the one latter one. Because of its close proximity to the terrorist attacks, the political world and international societies showed more understanding of the reasons for using a military force in the operation in Afghanistan which was, inter alia, directed against certain alleged perpetrators, or named terrorists, allegedly funding rescue in Afghanistan. It was also directed against the Talib regime which had allowed the Afghan territory to be used as a terrorist base, and which had refused the submit to the UN Security Council’s request to deport Osama bin Laden and other terrorist suspects. The US government justified its military intervention referring to the inalienable right of each state to defend its sovereignty, and indeed, the US sovereignty was violated in the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre. This justification, however, is not free from a number of serious doubts as to the lawfulness or legality of that act and its compatibility with the common practice of international law regarding the conditions for its application. In particular, the US government had failed to prove in a sufficient manner that the military act was really a necessary measure to be taken by the state to defend its sovereignty, or whether it was taken in a state of emergency, in the absence of other available measures, remedies or time given for lengthy deliberations. Besides, it is also doubtful whether the military operation had indeed been kept to the absolute minimum level and stayed within that limit. Its target were, after all, not only the remote and technically modest Al-kaida training bases, but also the military installations of the de facto Afghan government and some other strategic goals not at all in the terrorists’ hands. What was more, the US had not even attempted to procure from the UN a resolution available under article 42 of the UN Chart calling for the restoration of international peace and security. Instead, it decided upon a unilateral military operation. It may be therefore assumed that the main reason for the launching of the “Enduring Freedom" operation was, on the one hand, taking a revenge for the barbaric attack on the US and, on the other, a political will to overthrow the government which, apart from being hostile to the US. supported the anti-US terrorist movement (the next step of this political philosophy being the attack on Iraq).plArtykuł