Legitimate use of military force against state-sponsored - Air University

State Sponsorship
State sponsorship exists when a state directly uses international terrorism “as another
weapon of warfare to gain strategic advantage where they cannot use conventional means.” 50
According to the CIA, 1980 was “the first year [since World War II] that a large number of
deadly terrorist attacks were carried out by national governments. ” 51 State-sponsored terrorism,
to turn a phrase of Gen Carl von Clausewitz, “is a continuation of war by other means.” A 1985
Senate report agreed that terrorism “can be another tool for nations to project military and
political power. Terrorism [becomes] an instrument that can be brought into action whenever a
state wishes to project its power into the territory of another without accepting the responsibility,
accountability, and risks of avowed belligerency.” 52 States identified by the United States
government as having sponsored international terrorism at one time or another include Libya,
Iraq, Syria, and South Yemen. 53
State Support
State support of international terrorism exists when a state uses its resources to provide
assistance in the form of training, arms, explosives, equipment, intelligence, safe havens,
communications, travel documents, financing, or other logistic support but does not direct
terrorist incidents. 54 States give support when they provide capability without assuming control
or direction. Current evidence suggests that the Soviet Union and Soviet-bloc countries—
including Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany—are actively providing this type
of state support. 55
State Toleration
State toleration exists when states, although aware of terrorist groups within their borders,
do not support them but do not act to suppress them either. Such terrorists groups may be selfsupporting
or may have foreign sponsors or supporters. They may carry out their terrorist
activities primarily abroad having reached an unspoken understanding with the host government.
Allegations that some Western European nations have tolerated international terrorists within
their borders have surfaced from time to time—the Euzkadi ta Azkatasuna (Basque National
Liberty movement) in southwestern France, for example).
State Inaction
In this particular circumstance, the state does not wish to ignore international terrorists
within its borders but lacks the ability (either through inadequate domestic police and military
forces or lack of technology) to respond effectively. In such a situation, as we shall see in chapter
3, the state’s responsibility to deal with these terrorists continues. It may meet this responsibility
by inviting another state or regional organization to assist it. The aerial hijacking to Mogadishu
in 1977 is an example. The Somalian government, unable to act, asked for assistance from the
West German government. If a state is incapable of responding to international terrorism and
does not request outside help, then a situation may arise in which assistance may be given
without an invitation. The Entebbe hostage rescue is sometimes cited as an example, although