Martha Crenshaw has been researching terrorist organizations since the late 1960s. In the wake of the U.S. military’s successful mission against Osama bin Laden, she comments on what happens to Al Qaeda now, and the challenges that remain.

CISAC: What does the death of Osama bin Laden mean for the world?

Crenshaw: The killing of bin Laden brings closure to a pursuit that began well before the 9/11 attacks. The successful raid demonstrated American tenacity as well as a somewhat surprising ability to keep a secret over the past several months as American intelligence agencies zeroed in on bin Laden's fortified compound in Abbottabad. Although most of the world thought he was hiding in the mountainous and inaccessible border regions of Pakistan, sheltered by local tribes, he was actually centrally located in a city not too far from Islamabad. It is often said that terrorism cannot be deterred because terrorists have no return address, but it turned out that bin Laden did. After years of patient intelligence work the U.S. finally found it. 

CISAC: What happens to Al Qaeda now?

Crenshaw: There are differing opinions. One is that bin Laden is a unique figure and that there's no other leader of a terrorist organization that has the kind of aura he has. People who joined Al Qaeda swore personal allegiance to him. He had this kind of bearing, and they respected his personal piety. It's hard to replace a leader like that. At the same time, that part of the organization affiliated with bin Laden is still a major actor. A lot of attacks, like the London bombing, are traced back toward them. A lot of the failed and foiled attacks in the U.S. were traced back there, too, suggesting he played an operational role as well as an inspirational role.

On the other side, even if Al Qaeda disappeared, other affiliates like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are still extremely dangerous and capable. They can trade on his reputation and inspire others to join. They might make demands for revenge. There are also those who could replace bin Laden, not so much as an inspirational leader but in terms of operations. The central organization's more visible second in command, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, is free although he will be under intense pressure. There is also a second-tier leadership whose abilities and appeal are largely unknown. Local affiliates such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have often overshadowed AQ central, and in fact AQAP is currently considered to be the most serious threat to US security. 

CISAC: It sounds like there is likely to be jockeying for power.

Crenshaw: There certainly will be. Will Zawahiri necessarily step into the No. 1 role now? Or will he be challenged? It's possible. You can kind of see how little we know and how hard it is for the U.S. to piece it together by how long it has taken to find bin Laden. The U.S. has been looking for him since 1998.

CISAC: Does that make things more or less dangerous?

Crenshaw: There's a theory that the more fragmentation you have, the higher the level of violence. The way you get more resources and support is to be more audacious than your rivals. You could have violence from one faction against another. There's also the idea that you attack your enemy to show how dangerous you really are. Nobody wants to be seen as weak, so they feel that they have to do what the other side is doing. 

More: An interview with Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior, a European think tank based in Madrid. 

On March 8, Professor Larry May delivered a lecture entitled "Reparations, Restitution, and Transitional Justice" as part of the Program on Human Right's Sanela Diana Jenkins International Human Rights Speaker Series. May, a Professor of Philosophy and of Law at Vanderbilt University, presented his analysis of transitional justice and jus post bellum that has appeared in some of his 25 published books, as well as the many scholarly articles and essays he has written.

May began his lecture by explaining the historical origin of the idea of transitional justice, referencing the theory of distributive and compensatory justice as articulated by Aristotle. According to May, Aristotle's work could inform modern day thinking of how to achieve justice in transitional settings. Specifically, May argued that Aristotle's continuum of compensation to victims - ranging from excessive to deficient - reveals an unfortunate reality of transitional justice. This reality, according to May, is that in most instances the compensation to victims who suffer crimes against humanity is insufficient to rectify the injustices these individuals suffer.

After posing the rhetorical question of how the international community could even compensate the millions of individuals displaced or affected by the crisis in Darfur, May presented what he considers radical solution to this enduring problem. May suggested that the international community establish a worldwide fund out of which innocent and harmed citizens in war-torn countries would be compensated. While admitting that his solution may be logistically and politically problematic, May believed such a fund would be the only manner to provide true justice to affected people, as their governments may be themselves unable or unwilling to take such action.