• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Guest Blog: Did the Raid Against Bin Laden Violate Our Own Principles?

    Ever since the raid last month that killed Osama Bin Laden, the question of whether the US violated Pakistani sovereignty keeps on coming up. Heritage asked renowned international law scholar Jeremy Rabkin to address the matter.

    Did the United States violate Pakistan’s sovereignty when it raided Osama bin Laden’s lair in Abbottabad?  At first blush, that might seem hard to deny:  if a sovereign state can’t exclude outside military intervention, what’s left of sovereignty?

    But, in fact, the claim to sovereignty involves responsibilities as well as rights. The political thinkers who first emphasized the concept of sovereignty, such as Jean Bodin in the 16th Century and Hugo Grotius in the early 17th Century, also embraced doctrines of natural law, constraining what sovereigns could rightfully do.

    Sovereignty was supposed to make the world a more orderly place, by identifying the governing authority in each territory. If sovereigns could do anything at all, regardless of harm to others, sovereignty would actually make the world more chaotic. Within a country, a private owner has the general right to use his own property as he pleases – but he is blameworthy if he lets fires or smoke or animals spread from his own property into neighboring properties and cause damage there. Among sovereign states, where there is no international police force or reliable international tribunal to settle such disputes, the neighbor may resort to self-help to defend his own territory.

    Certainly, that is how early American statesmen saw the matter. At the time of the American Founding, the leading text on international law was The Law of Nations, by the Swiss diplomat Emmerich de Vattel, which had first appeared in 1758. Thomas Jefferson, when serving as George Washington’s Secretary of State, regularly cited Vattel’s authority, as his successors in that office (including James Madison) would do throughout the 19th century.

    Vattel insists that sovereigns cannot provide refuge to criminals who threaten the peace of their neighbors: a “sovereign who refuses … to punish the criminal or finally to deliver him up makes himself in a way an accessory to the deed [of the criminal] and becomes responsible for it.” In actual war, bystanders can’t invoke neutral rights if they shelter the enemy: “it is certain that if my neighbor offers a retreat to my enemies …  and allows them time to recover and to watch for an opportunity of making a fresh attack upon my territory, such conduct … warrants me in pursuing them into his territory.”

    Early American statesmen did not hesitate to act on these doctrines.  Most telling was the policy adopted by President James Monroe in response to raids against frontier settlements in Georgia by Seminole Indians from the neighboring Spanish colony (as it then was) of Florida.   In the fall of 1817, Monroe ordered an American military force to the Georgia frontier.   It was commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, who, only a few years before, had repulsed an invading British army in the Battle of New Orleans, at the climax of the War of 1812.   Jackson’s presence should have been a deterrent.  But the Indian raids continued.   In the spring of 1818, Jackson pursued a Seminole band into Spanish territory.   In the course of his incursion, he seized two Spanish forts to prevent them from being used to assist the Seminoles.   Following a military trial, he executed an English arms dealer supplying weapons and provisions to the Seminoles.

    Secretary of States John Quincy Adams rebuffed Spanish protests:  “the horrible combination of robbery, murder and war, with which the frontier of the United States bordering upon Florida has for several years past been visited, is ascribable altogether to the total and lamentable failure of Spain … to restrain, by force, her Indians from hostilities against the citizens of the United States.  …  It is therefore to the conduct of her own commanding officers that Spain must impute the necessity under which General Jackson found himself of occupying the places of their command.”

    Yet the United States did not declare war on Spain. President Monroe explained, in his subsequent Annual Message to Congress: “As there was reason to believe that the commanders of these posts had violated their instructions [from the Spanish government], there was no disposition to impute to their Government a conduct so unprovoked and hostile.   An order was, in consequence, issued to the [American] general in command there to deliver the [captured military] posts [back to Spanish control] … [after] the arrival of a competent [Spanish military] force to defend it against those savages and their associates.”

    In other words, the United States did not blame the Spanish government in Madrid for the misdeeds of Spanish colonial officials in Florida, when the latter connived at Seminole raids against American territory. But the United States was not willing to stand by helplessly, merely because the Spanish government was incapable of ensuring that its own military garrisons in Florida fulfilled their responsibilities.

    The analogies with the bin Laden raid may not be exact but they are close enough.   Bin Laden was not simply a harmless refugee from justice. He remained in the top leadership of a terrorist network that continued to plot against Americans – both civilians in our own cities and American troops fighting against Al Queda’s Taliban allies in neighboring Afghanistan. The highest authorities in the Pakistani government may not have known that bin Laden had found a safe haven in Abbottabad, but some local Pakistani officials must have been involved in protecting him.

    If, as seems likely, the United States could not have protested to the Pakistani government without alerting bin Laden’s protectors – and thereby giving the terrorist mastermind a chance to escape, yet again, from U.S. pursuit – there was no good alternative to the surprise U.S. raid on Abbottabad. In such circumstances, the U.S. was exercising its own sovereign rights when it treated Pakistan as having forfeited its usual sovereign authority over the town where bin Laden maintained his hide-out.

    Jeremy Rabkin is a Professor of Law at George Mason University. He has published widely and contributed an essay on “The Meaning of Sovereignty” to The Heritage Foundation’s First Principles Series.

    The views expressed by guest bloggers on the Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of The Heritage Foundation.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Guest Blog: Did the Raid Against Bin Laden Violate Our Own Principles?

    1. George Colgrove, VA says:

      I do not think it violated our principals. It should not have taken 8 months to act once "we found out" where he was. Nor should it taken Obama 16 hours to act. The "facts" we are being told is that OBL was in ONE PLACE for 6 years NEXT TO A MILITARY FACILITY!

      We should have had this guy years ago. That fits our values. If we use WWII as a model, these wars shoudl have been over years ago and the world should be at peace.

      After loosing over 4000 of our best and the expendature of over $7 trillion dollars against a rag tag group of insane people, I am very disapointed in the Pentagon's performance.

      If everythign we were told was the truth (and I highly doubt it) I have faith that the Navy Seal Team 6 could have completed this operation 8 months ago. But wars are no longer faught in the field, they are fought by politicians and pompus and incompetant federal workers.

      The OBL incident also showed how the federal workforce is nearly incapable of keeping tight lips. No wonder WikiLeaks has a lot of work to do!

      If we got OBL 5 to 6 years ago and began stripping out the danger within days after that, that would have been exceptional. This excersise was like doing our homework an hour after the nex class began.

      The biggest thing that is disappointing me is that all those hard drives and computers should have yeilded some imediate intel that could have been used for some major attacks. Maybe we did do some attacks – who knows. But we are not hearing anything. The story with the OBL event is not how heroic the Navy Seal Team 6 was, but how incompetant the White House and the federal workforce was.

      What is not meeting American Values is that we are getting too slothy in these things. Our military has to suffer with the "unworkable" federal workforce in the Pentagon. This episode shows that DoD cuts are needed and a reworking of the DoD structure is in order. We need lean and mean and be able to react in the twilight to complete missions. They need reliable hardware. They do not need useless hardware that was forced because it created 1000 jobs in some town. Moreover they do not need a president that is saying "ummmmmmm".

      We need to act on these things quickly!

    2. West Texan says:

      A sensible and concise explanation Jeremy. Thank you.

    3. Bill Davis ,Texas says:

      We saw pictures of the Hussein brothers when they met their fate,We also saw their

      Dad do his last dance ,But about Bin Ladin ? ,only the fishes know for sure.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.