The Third Annual Waldemm A. Solf Lecture in International Law: Contemporary Terrorism and the Rule of Law

• Author: by the Honorable Louis G. Fields. Jr.
• Pages: 01

Ambassador af the United States of America, Retired

1. INTRODUCTION

On 16 April 1986, The Judge Advocate General's School was honored to be addressed by Ambassador Louis G. Fields, Jr. As the Third Walde. mar A. Salf Lecturer in International Law, Ambassador Fields spoke on the serious threat posed to democratic government and the rule of law by contemporary terrorism. Coincidentally. Ambassador Fields deli". ered his lecture the morning after the U.S.air strike against Libya.

Ambassador Fields holds B Bachelor's Degree from the University of Florida, B Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Virginia, and cam. pleted a year of graduate study in international relations at the Wood. row Wilson School of Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. He served in the Army as a lieutenant during the Korean War.

He sewed as a Consultant-Expert in Economic Warfare to the Viet. nam Bureau of the Agency for International Development from 1967 until 1969. From November 1969 until September 1981, he served in the Legal Adviser's Office, Department of State. During that time, he was Assistant Legal Adviser for Politico-Military Affairs (1970.74) and Assistant Legal Advaer for Special Functional Problems, providing legal counsel to the Department's Office for Combatting Terrorism and the Bureau for International Narcotics Matters.

In September 1981, he was appointed United States Representative to the Conference on Disarmament with the rank of Ambassador He served in that capacity until January 1985, when he retired from the Foreign Service to enter the private practive of law.

Ambassador Fields has lectured in legal medicine at the Medical Cab lege of Virginia, in international law at The Judge Advocate General's School, and in economic warfare, terrorism. and crisis management at the Air Farce Special Operations School. He has contributed to several publications an terrorism, foreign policy, and political military subjects. In Augurt 1984, the American College in Smtzerland instituted a scholarship in his name for a student who has demonstrated an active in- 1

terest in advancing better understanding among nations end promoting international security.

Following ia the text of Ambassador Field's lecture.

U. THE LECTURE

I am most grateful for the honor of presenting to The Judge Advocate general'^ School the Third Annual Waldemar A. Soif Lecture in Interna. tianal Law. This honor is heightened by the fact that 'Welly" Solf 1s an esteemed friend and former colleague with whom I have collaborated on many occasions during my yeara in the Legal Adviser's Office of the De-partment af State. Even then Colonel Solf was a legend within the ranks of international lawyers and there was some trepidation when I, as the newlyappointed Assistant Legal Adviser for Politico-Military Affairs, had the mission to challenge the Pentagon on some obscure interpreta. tian of a SOFA agreement and was informed that Colonel Solf was the one I had to convince. Legend had it that Colonel Solf took great delight in dismantling lawyers from "the fudge factory"--as we are affection. ately dubbed acms the Potomac. Much to my surprise--and pleasure-I found him to be a mast cordial and helpful gentleman who set me straight on the matter in a most obliging way Thus, I can justifiably feel I have attained true recognition by this invitation and, despite the friendship formed in that encounter, I have cautiously chosen a subject on which I think-at least I hope-we agree.

My public career in international law spent in the Department of State was rather unique in that it focused largely on weapovrelated issues. As Assistant Legal Adviser for Pohtica.Military Affairs (1970mid 1974). I had legal responsibility in foreign military sales, bases, and arms con. trol. As Assistant Legal Adviser for Special Functional Problems (mid 1974.811, I spent a major portion of my time dealing with what haa beencalled "the weapon of the weak-terrorism. And my twilight years were served as the United States Ambassador to the Conference an Disarmament m Geneva and simultaneously as B U.S. Representative M the First Committee of the United Nations (late 1981.1985) where my responsi. bilities centered on trying to h i t or eliminate weapons As you can imagine, these responsibilities were both difficult and challengmg. Deal-ing with issues sc close to the heart of national security limits one's ap. tions and circumscribes one's range of compromise when these issues are on the negotiating table.

Since my final public role was at the most respond& level and in Bperiod of heightened international tension. it provided unique insights not only into the heady climate of multi.lateral negotiating gamesman. ship, but also into the frustrations of trying to achieve consensus within

1986 CONTEMPORARY TERROREM

a diverse body of national representatives comprising a microcosm of the melange internationole.

On my return to the private sector I was inexorably drawn beck to the subject of my primary foeus m the State Department-international ter. rorism. I am intently interested-even amazed-by what has occurred in this area during my four year hiatus and thus my current focus is on the new direction which this macabre phenomenon has taken in that period and will likely take in the near tern.

Contemporary terrorism poses a serious threat not only to lives and property but to institutions af democratic government and the rule of law. It in this challenge that I wish to examine with you today.

I was, to use the words of Dean Acheson, '$resent at the creation" of our nation's initial efforts to grapple with an awesome new phenomenon emerging on the world scene-international terrorism perpetrated by subnational groups

Terror itself was not new There have been acts of terror down through the ages. Terror wes institutionalized by Robespierre. chief spokesman of France's Jacobin Party. who through his Committee of Public Safety governed France after the Revolution. The period between September 1793 and July 1194 became known as the "Reign of Terror," during which an estimated 20,000 persons were killed and some 300,000 arrested. The most notable victim was Marie Antoinette, whose public execution by the guillotine is generally regarded a6 one of the first inci. dents to be called "terrorism." Although perhaps It would not fall within today's definitim of terrorism, it would embady some of the elements found in contemporary terrorist acts. Marie Antoinette was a symbolic victim and her public execution was designed to rid France of suspected traitors through fear of meeting a similar fate Thus, by using a symbolic figure, fear was instilled within a much wider group than thia unfortu. nate victim.

It was precisely the same modus uiuendi which led Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorists to assassinate Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1979. His brutal murder served no direct political objective of the IRA, but, 8s B symbolic victim, his death Bent ahoekwaves across the Irish Sea anddemonstrated that Britain had-and would-pay a dear price if she maintained her present policy in Northern Ireland. As Neil Livingstone observed in his book, The War Against Terrorism: 'Thus, public opiman, not the victim, is. in the case of Mountbatten as it is in most in. stances, the real target of the terrorists."'

'N Irvmgafone,The War Agalnst Terrorism 130(19S2119861.

This objeehve of today's terrorist to involve a wider public dimension than the target or victim is the most distinpshmg factor between a ter.rorist act and B common crime. It tends to blur the legal approaches to deal with terrorist crimes. This is especially true in the cases arising under extradition laws, particularly in recent...