Iraqi insurgent tactics, relying heavily on car bombings and other guerilla-style attacks, have become more and more sophisticated, with increasingly fatal results for Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops. Although U.S.-led forces enjoyed a swift overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the ongoing occupation of Iraq has demonstrated that superior training, tactics, and technology are of less use when your opponent doesn’t play by the rules.

For more than 100 years, nations engaging in warfare have been guided by protocols—the so-called “laws of war.” Seeded at the first Geneva Convention of 1864 (with guidelines pertaining to the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield) and augmented and formalized at a series of Hague and Geneva conventions since, these rules attempt to “diminish the severity and disasters of war” (as it was stated at the Hague in 1907). They set standards for acceptable combat, legal and illegal weaponry, the treatment of prisoners of war, the destruction of cultural property, the responsibilities of neutral countries, and a range of other issues inherent in warfare.

While the rules were not always followed, they provided a framework of acceptable action and response. They defined barbarism, and gave nations that abide by the rules rationale for a response when others resort to tactics considered outside the norms.

But in the last 20 years, the nature of warfare has changed, with conflicts between equally matched nations replaced by acts of terrorism from rogue extremist and insurgent groups. Think Iraq. Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden. In what’s become known as asymmetric warfare, non-state- or state-supported terrorists/insurgents disregard established protocols while using unconventional means to negate the strengths of typically more powerful adversaries.

“These conflicts have produced all kinds of disconnects with the way wars have traditionally been conducted and the rules for conducting those wars,” says William Banks, Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Law, professor of public administration, and an international expert on constitutional and security law.

According to Banks, terrorism often leaves the defending state with little choice but to respond in ways that inflict heavy civilian casualties. As a result, nations with the upper hand, expected to restrain themselves, are instead criticized for violating established rules (even when retaliating against opponents that violate the same rules). No one seems certain anymore what is acceptable.

Despite widespread international acknowledgment that the nature of warfare has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, there has been little systematic attention to revising laws of war that are as much as 100 years old. It’s time, Banks says, to re-examine those rules.

“There’s no accountability,” he concludes, “for those involved in these types of conflicts.”

Accountability. That’s what’s on the table.

In an SU College of Law conference room, Banks is debating dilemmas posed by the Israel- Hezbollah conflict last summer; also in the debate are colleagues from the International Bar Association in London and the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel. It’s one of a series of video teleconferences bringing together experts in international law, security studies, and counterterrorism to examine the application of century-old rules of war to modern-day war.

Banks is acting in his role as director of Syracuse University’s Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT), created in 2003 as a joint initiative of the SU College of Law and the Maxwell School. INSCT has an interdisciplinary focus, tackling law and policy questions related to security and counterterrorism. Faculty affiliates have expertise in military operations, global counterterrorism policy, counterproliferation, diplomacy and international relations, terrorist methods and psychology, history, law, and economics. They teach graduate students from a range of disciplines, many of whom are pursuing the University’s certificate in security and terrorism studies.

Today’s videoconference fits dead-center in INSCT’s purview. What makes it special, though, are the other players—particularly Boaz Ganor. Ganor is founder and director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) in Herzliya, Israel. ICT is a bit like INSCT, in that it is housed in a school of public affairs (the Lauder School of Government) that is part of a larger university (the Interdisciplinary Center). ICT has emerged as perhaps the leading academic think tank for counterterrorism in the world. It tries to facilitate international cooperation in the global struggle against terrorism, serving as a wellspring of expertise in homeland security, threat vulnerability, intelligence analysis, defense policy, and the like.

“Most of the world has learned about terrorism from the experiences of the Israelis,” says Banks. “It’s a laboratory that can’t be beat anywhere in the world for learning first-hand from those who’ve experienced terrorism how to counter it.”

In fall 2005, ICT and INSCT entered into a formal partnership, combining their complementary strengths. It was a natural fit—a renowned think tank, situated in one of the world’s terrorism hotspots, and a new, quickly emerging academic institute, overseen by a scholar recognized as an international authority on security law and policy. Together, ICT and INSCT now share a goal of educating a new generation of leaders to combat modern terrorism. The partnership brings together:

Ganor, who is also a member of Israel’s National Committee for Homeland Security Technologies and a consultant to Israeli Government Ministries on counterterrorism;

ICT deputy director Eitan Azanzi, a colonel in the Israeli Defense Forces; and at INSCT, experts such as Banks; retired U.S. General Montgomery Meigs (currently heading a Pentagon task force studying improvised explosive devices); William Smullen, director of Maxwell’s National Security Studies program and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell; and Maxwell Dean Mitchel Wallerstein, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for counterproliferation policy.

“It’s an incredible brain trust,” says Keli Perrin, assistant director of INSCT. “The sharing of ideas and cultivation of relationships between these pre-eminent experts and their powerhouse organizations makes them each more potent than they are on their own.”

The INSCT/ICT partnership was originally the brainchild of SU trustee Gerry Cramer, a Syracuse University alumnus and long-time champion of the Maxwell School—a member of the School’s advisory board who has funded more than three dozen student scholarships and four named professorships at Maxwell. Cramer is also a benefactor of the Interdisciplinary Center—the university of which ICT is part. Daphna Cramer, his wife, is an Israeli and the couple spends quite a bit of time at their home in Israel. His strong connections to both institutions made him a likely broker for this arrangement.

“The Lauder School at IDC was looking to pair with someone to develop its program in government and diplomacy,” Cramer says. “When you have a deep affection for two institutions, you try to find areas where they could be beneficial to one another. I knew the Maxwell School was a natural partner. And any time you create something new and outside the envelope, you create an avenue for great things to happen.”

At the heart of the INSCT/ICT partnership is a series of student exchanges, largely funded by Cramer. Both institutions have designed intensive two- and three-week courses exclusively for the students of their partnering institution, designed to give those students an overview of the pertinent issues. Syracuse sends students to ICT in Herzliya in the summer to learn about counterterrorism; IDC sends Israeli students to the Maxwell School in the fall to learn about American politics and governance.