ABSTRACT
Professor Yuri Kolosov and Geoffrey Levitt present two distinct positions regarding how international law should address the threats to international security posed by terrorism and drug trafficking. Kolosov suggests that neither terrorism nor drug trafficking can give rise to a right to use force unilaterally in self-defense. Levitt draws an analogy between terrorism and drug trafficking in discussing modifications in traditional models of self-defense to take account of these threats. The Alvarez case better illustrates the thorny issues that commonly arise in efforts to combat drug trafficking by means of forcible abduction on foreign territory. In short, it is ill-advised to construct an expansive notion of self-defense to justify forcible seizure of drug traffickers on foreign territory without the host country's consent. Such a move would encourage the unilateral use of force and would undermine the political consensus needed to fashion effective multilateral solutions to the problem of drug trafficking.
