Given the fact that al-Liby

[chandonar0]

While on the one hand it may mean that the state has to act in the heat of the moment so as to effectively defend itself, it also may mean, particularly if a specific armed attack can be said to be over (in this case, the 1998 embassy bombings) yet a threat of further attacks exists given the ultimate objectives of the attacking state or group (in this whatsapp number list case, al-Qaida), that the state exhausts as far as possible non-forcible measures before resorting to those of a forcible nature. was located in Libya in 2013 (again, we are not privy to intelligence as to how long the US was aware of his location), the standard the US would have to satisfy appears to be that of the host state – Libya – being unable or unwilling to take any sort of action in light of being notified of the presence of such a wanted individual.

This controversial standard is one that has emerged, particularly in the vocabulary of the US, since the events of 9/11. Indeed, the US has been resolute in reserving ‘the right to take unilateral action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves.’ (as quoted here) In essence, its application here would mean that if the Libyan authorities did not have the capabilities to either arrest and detain al-Liby, or were either openly harbouring him or providing other forms of logistical support, then the door would be open for the US to take the necessary action to bring the accused to justice upon the basis of acting in self-defence.