This article examines the range of arguments articulated to justify the use of force under the
‘War on Terror’. The three key justifications for unilateral force directed against terrorist actors,
pre-emptive force, implied authorisation and the use of force to prevent terrorist actors operating
from failed states, are demonstrated as analogous to domestic provocation excuses. As such, the
article argues the ‘end’ of the ‘War on Terror’ has been in name only as the Obama
Administration in the United States continues to develop practice in line with that of its
predecessor. The analogy with domestic provocation excuses demonstrates weaknesses of
contemporary US practice and of the pre-emptive force justification. Using a feminist
understanding of the limitations of provocation defences and of the relationship between social,
cultural, political and legal norms, the legacy of the ‘War on Terror’ is demonstrated as an
assertion of a limited model of security that ignores the role militaries play in women’s insecurity
and which limits women’s participation through the use of sexual stereotypes. The article
concludes with a discussion of the range of feminist strategies that might be invoked to challenge
the legacy of the ‘War on Terror’
