The language of just war

The term War on Terror is compared to the language of criminal justice in both theory and practice, using just war theory, semiotics, and empirical research on how terrorism is effectively defeated.;The phrase War on Terror raises false public expectations that the problem of terrorism is effectively solved through traditional military operations on the battlefield. The term undermines state authority and disregards the "result-test" prong of war analysis that requires parameters for defining victory and resulting peace. The term also defies empirical research that military intelligence, covert action, and relentless police efforts---not war---neutralize terrorism. Evidence indicates that the vast majority of terrorist groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process or (2) police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members. The term raises the profile of terrorist organizations, increases their ability to recruit and acquire funding, and encourages belief they are conducting a jihad (or holy war) against the United States. Since the language of war actually hinders the elimination of terrorism, the language and procedure of military intelligence, special operations, and criminal justice is recommended. The author contends that terrorists should be described as mere criminals who are held accountable to the demands of a public justice system.;The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a potential counter-terrorism tool that utilizes the language and procedure of criminal justice. The court is presented as a neutral, effective, and transparent forum for the prosecution of terrorists who plot widespread attacks against civilians. Since inception in 2003, the ICC has issued many indictments, but arrested few criminals. Thus, the author argues that the need for state cooperation and the pragmatics of local security require legal reform of the ICC. The jurisdiction of the ICC should be based only on case referrals from nations against their own nationals. This will encourage all states to join, eventually allowing universal jurisdiction and increasing enforcement by encouraging state cooperation. States will enforce ICC warrants on behalf of other states when suspected criminals flee national borders. Through diplomacy, states will urge other states to refer suspected criminals to the ICC. The result will be an effective court with the power of enforcement. A case study of the ICC in northern Uganda presents problems and solutions for this new approach to counter-terrorism in the attempted arrest and prosecution of terrorist leader Joseph Kony.