Search: self-defense
22 Jan No, There Is No International Legal Basis for the “Bloody Nose” Strategy
...deliberation.” They specifically argue for preemptive self-defense, a term that the US traditionally uses to describe self-defense against attacks that are not imminent.(The Bush doctrine is an example.) And they invoke the “last opportunity to act” test, which is not necessarily inconsistent with anticipatory self-defense, but can easily be interpreted to allow for preemptive self-defense, as Adil Haque nicely explains here. If the authors are endorsing a view of self-defense that does not require an imminent attack, their position is clearly wrong. Here is Ruys again (pp. 336-38): [T]here can...15 Dec Ashley Deeks’ Problematic Defense of the “Unwilling or Unable” Test
the responsive force is directed merely at the NSA that is engaging in the armed attacks, it is not a use of responsive for agaist the state as such and permissible measures of self-defense have been consented to in advance by all members of the U.N. Charter. Benjamin G. Davis Those generally here (coudl not resist): A natural right of self-defense may lead to a natural wrong of self-defense. Jordan: Thanks for the explanation though the "as such" leaves some space for debate that I tend to resist. Best, Ben...10 Jan Trump’s Threat of Destruction of North Korea and Proportionate Defensive Force: An Assessment of Similar Observations in Legal Scholarship and US Practice
[Sina Etezazian serves as Digest of State Practice Regional Coordinator for the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. He recently completed his PhD at Monash University. His doctoral thesis was titled “Ambiguities Regarding the Necessity and Proportionality Criteria for the Exercise of Self-Defense in International Law”. In 2017, he won the 2016 Monash Law School Students’ Publication Prize for his article providing a detailed reappraisal of proportionate self-defense]. On 19 September 2017, President Donald Trump stated in the UN General Assembly that if the US is “forced...20 Jun Analysing the US Invocation of Self-Defence Re: Abu Khattallah
that issue are possible: Self-defence permits the use of force only in response to an armed attack; force cannot be used pre-emptively or preventively (“responsive self-defence”) Self-defence permits the use of force to pre-empt an imminent armed attack but not to prevent a temporally more remote armed attack (“pre-emptive self-defence”) Self-defence permits the use of force to prevent even a temporally remote armed attack (“preventive self-defence”) Unfortunately, because of the US’s typical lack of transparency concerning its use of force, Power’s letter says nothing about the time-frame of the armed...
22 Mar India’s Decisive Turn on the Right of Self-Defence
self-defence when they are read as independent from each other. However, its combined view of customary international law, which permits preemptive self-defence, and Article 51, which permits self-defence against non-state actors, is what it presents as its comprehensive view of right of self-defence against the attacks from non-state actors. This is a significantly expansive view of the right of self-defence. Expansive View of the Right of Self-defence While the statement articulates India’s position, it presents by far the broadest view of the right of self-defence against non-state actors. While presenting...28 Mar Assassination and the Koh Speech
hostilities" sufficient to allow you to fight back with lethal military force under the laws of war instead of general self defense? In a Mumbai styled attack by Taliban/al Qaeda against the US East Coast, the use of military force is clearly permitted by the AUMF and self defense. But if you assert that the laws of war do not apply immediately when the enemy force has presented itself, then you are unfairly stacking the decks in favor of your "self defense over armed conflict" argument by artificially constraining armed...