Search: self-defense

heart of the SROE is US self-defense policy, addressing national, unit, collective, and individual self-defense. Despite the use of these different self-defense labels, the SROE are just addressing national self-defense in jus ad bellum. The terms national, unit, collective and individual, are merely designations for when, and by whom, national self-defense can be authorized. Most importantly, individual self-defense as stated in the SROE is not the same as criminal self-defense. The SROE draw their authority from international law, not criminal law. This is evident from the way the self-defense authorities...

(Another of the contributors, Hans Boddens Hosang, has done some of the most rigorous thinking on self-defense bases and origins, worth reading more of here and here). The first position – that a service member or his unit’s self-defense is supported by the extraterritorial application of domestic self-defense rights – is the predominant view for most European countries (see, e.g., the Norway contribution, the personal self-defense description in the Netherlands contribution, and these case studies referencing the positions of France, Germany, and the UK). The last approach, the sovereign self-defense...

right to self-defense relate to their obligations under international law. There are essentially two (related) sets of questions surrounding soldier self-defense that are relevant to international law. The first relates to the source and nature of soldier self-defense; the second to its modalities. Source(s) and Nature of Soldier Self-Defense What is the nature of soldier self-defense in domestic law? Is it merely a criminal defense? A private right? If both, are they consistent? At the international level, how does soldier self-defense relate to the law governing the use of force...

main argument in such cases, criminal law self-defence could still be argued in the alternative. The interplay between criminal law notions of self-defence and IHL is therefore complex and the application of the lex specialis maxim in this context – to prefer IHL over self-defence in a trial – is doubtful in my view. It shall be added that domestic laws differ considerably from one another in relation to the criminal law concept of self-defence. Some see self-defence as a justification, others as an excuse. Some accept self-defence pleas to...

always retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Unless otherwise directed by a unit commander as detailed below, military members may exercise individual self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. When individuals are assigned and acting as part of a unit, individual self-defense should be considered a subset of unit self-defense. As such, unit commanders may limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Both unit and individual self-defense includes defense of other...

of its peacekeepers’ right to self-defence as an inherent right. I conclude this historical review of the evolution of the UN doctrine with some brief points and questions about the UN’s approach to the use of force in self-defence today. I do not address the protection of civilians in the context of the right to self-defence nor do I critique the UN’s approach to the use of force in self-defence. Self-Defence as a right The doctrine of the use of force in self-defence in UN peacekeeping started with the deployment...

to reinforce the argument of Tams and Devaney concerning the relationship between geography and self-defense actions against irregular forces. By way of contrast, several examples can be found during the UN era where a state condemned the remoteness of the response taken in self-defense against both state and non-state actors. For example, when the US claimed that its 1986 aerial bombing of Libyan territory had been validly undertaken in response to imminent attacks from Libyan-sponsored terrorists (UN SCOR, 2674th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.2674 (15 April 1986); Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Self-Defense...

[Jens David Ohlin is Professor of Law at Cornell Law School .] Ian Henderson and Bryan Cavanagh have hit the nail on the head in identifying a crucial and under-theorized question that goes right to the basic structure of the laws of war. I am in complete agreement that invocations of self-defense during armed conflict are both confused and confusing. There is already the frequent problem of conflating individual self-defense (in the criminal law sense) with collective self-defense (jus ad bellum and article 51 of the UN Charter). In addition,...

Jordan There appears to be some mixing of claims regarding premptive self-defense, anticipatory self-defense, and self-defense when an armed attack occurs. Once an armed attack is underway or occurs, the necessity criterion has benn met. A minority view would tolerate anticipatory self-defense if an armed attack is imminent, but would involve inquiry whether necessity actually exists. see http://ssrn.com/abstract=2402414 Also, the fact that a few states have claimed the right of self-defense in case of armed attacks on their nationals abroad is not determinative. As partly noted, what has been the...

...organization. This post is part of our week-long symposium on soldier self-defense and international law.] Introduction and Modalities of Self-defence The notion of self-defence under international law refers to the right of a State to respond to a prior or imminent use of unlawful force in the form of an armed attack. It can be exercised at various levels and in different contexts subject to a number of generally recognized conditions which may be applied somewhat differently, depending on the modality of self-defence in question. Consequently, discussing self-defence in a...

B against State A? For instance, there might be a good argument for Israel to bomb Iran in preventive self-defence due to perceived threats by Iran if Israel agrees that Iran can do the same against Israel on the basis of (similar) perceived threats. If Israel agrees that this would be in Iran's right, then they do have a slightly better argument... JordanPaust Response... Kevin: The Caroline incident is NOT justification for anticipatory self-defense, what you term preemptive self-defense (which is confusing because others consider preemptive self-defense to encompass what...

threat (Norwegian LOAC Manual, 2013, pp. 24-25). For instance, if a soldier participating in an armed conflict is attacked by a civilian for reasons not related to the conflict, such as an angry farmer protecting his crops, self-defence would enable the soldier to use force to defend him/herself. The source of this right would be the criminal law concept set out in question 1 and must be understood distinct from States’ right to self-defence under jus ad bellum.   What are the different versions of self-defence applicable to soldiers in...