President Obama had the legal authority to order operation Geronimo and the execution of the plan. Research by Salway (2018) establishes that after the September 11, 2001, terror attack in the U.S., congress implemented a regulation granting the president the sole power to order the use of force in achieving justice. The United Nations, however, incorporated regulation banning violence across borders. Hovell and Hughes (2022) postulate that the U.N. charter on international relations is void in the case a nation grants foreign military troop permission to coordinate attacks within the territory. Apart from disregarding the U.N. law, the Afghanistan government offered assistance on a consensual baseline for executing Osama Bin Laden in the state. In a different spectrum, the security council authorization manual is subject to interpretation that the member states attain the command to engage in activities by using force to promote peaceful coexistence (Phillips, 2022). Radicalism is a significant threat to peace and harmony within a nation due to the negative trickle-down effect of the destruction of property, loss of lives, and insecurity interfering with investors’ confidence to engage in economic growth and development.
Over the decades, the prevalence of war among nations triggered the essence of the United Nations developing a Charter addressing the sovereignty of states. Hovell and Hughes (2022) argue that President Obama’s legal authorization is a controversial deed to the construct of promoting international peace. The main reason for the argumentative framework regards the institutionalization of Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. The clause establishes that it is individual nations’ responsibility to refrain from using force or threats on international relations to destabilize the integrity of a territory or political independence. The violation of the legal mainframe is an inconsistent feature of the objective and aims of the United Nations. Despite the clarity of the clause, Hovell and Hughes (2022) establish that relativism is subject to three quotients; security council authorization, consent, and self-defense. While the U.S. constitution renders president Obama the mandate to exercise the use of force in foreign nations, the U.N. opposes engagement in conflicts among countries.
The third insight abounds the U.N. charter clause enshrines the perceptive self-defense act of the U.S. against terrorist attacks from Osama bin Laden. Different states articulated distinctive opinions concerning America’s mission to execute operation Geronimo in a foreign sovereign country. However, researchers depict that despite the controversy, President Obama acted in self-defense of the nation’s security from one critical threat, that is, Osama bin Laden (Finkelstein, 2021). Therefore, coordinating the attack proved imperative to accomplish the main aim of the engagement and execution plan. Primarily, the emergence of the self-defense concept attributed to the paradigm shift in authority and structural international relations. Nevertheless, the dynamism of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan affairs prominently affected its sovereignty hence violating the U.N. charter’s vital goal of conventional preservation of an institution’s political independence. After the September 11, 2001 terror attack, President Bush and congress incorporated a regulation intensifying America’s investment in fighting terrorism. The initiative rendered the essence of a unilateral action between Afghanistan and American governments in dealing with Osama bin Laden’s terror activities.
One of the situations that denies president Obama the legal authorization to order operation Geronimo entails the compromise on diplomatic relations. Primarily, the contrast lies in the justification of the principle of necessity and the historical perception of self-defense. International relation is a multidimensional phenomenon that aims at enhancing coherence on dynamic interests. According to research, there is a hierarchical condition engulfing the justification of the use of force (Schlag, 2019). The levels include a nation’s consent, authorization from the security council, and perceptive self-defense. In the case of President Obama’s order for operation Geronimo, there is a disregard for the protocol rendering the significance of criticism on a country’s sovereignty and influential quotient. Researchers indicate that the U.S. focused on promoting a sustainable political settlement leading to the compromise of diplomacy (Bachman & Holland, 2019). One of the critical clauses that further contrasts the conceptual baseline encompasses stipulations from Article 51 (Hovell & Hughes, 2022). The legal clause, Article 51, indicates that the right of self-defense takes prominence while the security council establishes alternative measures promoting global security and peaceful coexistence.
In conclusion, President Obama’s order to execute operation Geronimo is legally bound by the controversial U.N. charter clauses. Despite the advocacy for international peace, the U.N. establishes that all states attain the right of self-defense. One of the elements within the U.N. legal clause on the prohibition of violence that fosters a loophole is consent. Ideally, President Obama’s objective on the actualization of operation Geronimo entails combating terrorism internationally. As a result, the president’s command aligns with the argumentative construct concerning the preservation of humanity and prosperity. Therefore, the American military implemented the plan to kill Osama bin Laden as a formative system of self-defense while advocating for peaceful endurance. The main aim of the coordinated attack in a foreign territory enshrined eliminating the significant threat to the human population, that is, terrorism.
References
Bachman, J. S., & Holland, J. (2019). Lethal sterility: Innovative dehumanisation in legal justifications of Obama’s drone policy. The International Journal of Human Rights, 23(6), 1028-1047. Web.
Finkelstein, C. (2021). The status of state and nonstate actors in postwar hostilities: restoring the rule of law to U.S. targeted killing operations. Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 54, 1163. Web.
Hovell, D., & Hughes, M. (2022). Self-defence and its dangerous variants: Afghanistan and international law. LSE Public Policy Review, 2(3). Web.
Phillips, E. (2022). Afghanistan on a global stage: The end of armed conflict and congress’s constitutional powers. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 53(4), 817. Web.
Salway, T. (2018). Congressional authorization of the campaign against ISIL. Indiana Law Journal, 93(5), 4. Web.
Schlag, G. (2019). The afterlife of Osama bin Laden: Performative pictures in the “war on terror”. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 12(1), 1-18. Web.