The Conventions have been criticised for failing to adequately deal with Internal Armed Conflict, and, therein, the position of insurgents, or terrorists. The stumbling block has been the issue of internal affairs ('in which thou shall not interfere'), and the alternating positions of terrorists, freedom fighters, and similar definitional issues. Nevertheless, Common Article 3 tries, and Additional Protocol II signed in 1977 tries still harder to deal with the issue. Still, there is essential deadlock, as the states parties to the conventions largely retain a subjective discretion in the identification of a situation that falls under the Convention or its additional protocols. Traditionally, 'terrorists' have been political in nature, fighting to overthrow a government, for self-determination, or secession. Yet the international community has found it too difficult a subject to cater for under international law. What chance then international terrorists? International Law is the law of nations, where states agree the rules under which other states should behave. International Terrorism has no state, and therefore no legal personality. It cannot therefore be legislated for, at least in the conventional sense.

So let us not castigate the US for being wholly unreasonable. It is necessary to understand that the tools by which the current White House administration has been assailed are indeed in need of repair – international law, international legitimacy, and consensus politics. The globalisation process has changed the rules, and the globalisation process should itself be used to facilitate its beneficial development. This should be done by the maintenance of a global debate on the future of international relations first, and collective support and development policies. The United Nations, an undoubtedly damaged structure, nevertheless remains a forum for the discussion of such issues, and its weakness is ironically a source of strength as it forges forward. For those who oppose the US and who have been injured by US foreign policy in recent times will no doubt see a level of solidarity in the UN, which has also been a victim of that policy.

The US needs multilateralism for economic and military reasons. Its military is stretched to breaking point in Iraq, and should another front be opened up in the near term, that would be devastating. The economic damage comes in the form of trade agreements and defence budgeting. The current account deficit of the US reached a record $541.8 billion in 2003 and continues to climb, which translates as dollars flowing into foreign hands. As a percentage, it has long ago surpassed the 3.8% mark, at which point the Argentine economy plunged into crisis in 1998. Strong trade relationships, control of sales and supply channels and a reduced requirement on defence spending will all serve to reduce this millstone around the neck of the US economy.

Defying international law undermines its authority significantly, and however omnipotent the US may be, its reach does not in fact extend as far as it might like. International law and international organisations can help to bridge this gap in security capability, where co-operation with other states will lead to a culture of security. The prosecution of international acts of terrorism can be an obligation imposed on states everywhere by the regime of International Law, and specifically in the principle of universal jurisdiction, but only where that legal framework is infused by the legitimacy conferred by a global consensus. The US must support these efforts if it is to avoid the requirement to fight this war on its own.

In fighting its way through international agreements and conventions, the US has proved to itself that it cannot, in fact, police the world on its own. It cannot protect itself, unilaterally, from the threat of international terrorism. Its economy has no future in the absence of international co-operation and trade agreements. It can only succeed, therefore, in developing a multilateral, co-operative strategy. Suddenly the United Nations isn't such a bad thing.