Search: self-defense
17 Oct Additional Thoughts on Self-Representation
the Security Council, gives defendants the right to self-represent. That is, of course, an obvious point. But it seems all too forgotten in these discussions. Article 21(4)(d) may be an egregious mistake. But that is the Security Council’s fault, not Dr. Karadzic’s. It is not his job to save the Security Council from itself. The existence of the right, in my view, means that our baseline assumption has to be that it is legally and morally unjustifiable to penalize Dr. Karadzic in any way for his decision to represent himself....20 May Guest Post: The Human Rights Impact of Drone Strikes
...an "imminent threat" because an "imminent" threat is not even a threat and self-defense against a mere threat, once it actually exists, is "preemptive" self-dfense (al la the old discreditd Bush doctrine) and unlawful, it is not even anticipatory self-defense against an "imminent attack" (note the difference!), which itself is onconsistnet with the language in UN art. 51. 5) when a person is DPH in Pakistan (directly participating in the international armed conflct occuring in Afghanistan against U.S. soldiers), the theatre of war migrated de facto to where such person...15 Feb These Aren’t the Courts We’re Looking For
...be lawful: (1) when the United States is acting in self-defense (pursuant to the President’s power under Article II of the Constitution) in response to an “imminent” threat; or (2) when the United States is using force as part of an ongoing armed conflict (authorized by Congress and consistent with the international law of armed conflict). Self-defense first. Under the most common conception of the word “imminent” – and under the interpretation of that standard most plainly accepted under international law – the use of force in self-defense would only...06 Jun Targeted Killing in US Counterterrorism Strategy and Law
it offers blunt advice to the Obama administration and the US Congress with a particular normative goal in mind – to preserve the legal rationales for the use of self-defense in targeted killing, whether or not an IHL armed conflict is underway, consistent with the positions taken by the United States in the 1980s, and culminating with a statement of the US position on self-defense against terrorism and targeting terrorists in third-state safe havens by then-State Department legal advisor Abraham Sofaer in 1989. The point of the paper is to...12 Mar Guest Post: Self-Defence and Non-State Actors in the Cold War Era – A Response to Marty Lederman
...attacks may respond with appropriate use of force to defend against further attacks. This is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the United Nations Charter....” The U.S. has consistently recognized the propriety of self-defense against NSA armed attacks since 1814, 1816, 1817, 1818 and the Caroline incident in 1837. See, e.g., Self-Defense Targetings of Non-State Actors..., 19 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 237, 241-49 (2010) (available at SSRN). The 1986 ICJ opinion did not rule on self-defense against a NSA as such. Greece addressed an “attack...28 Sep Do Kurds Have the Right to Self-Determination and/or Secession?
etc.). This type of self-determination has been described as “internal,” and many in the international community argue that outside of the decolonization paradigm, peoples only have internal self-determination rights. Unlike the exercise of external self-determination, the implementation of meaningful internal self-determination rights does not entail disrupting the territorial integrity of the larger mother state. This is why most scholars argue that peoples outside of the decolonization paradigm can only exercise self-determination rights within the territory of their mother state, in an internal manner. Nonetheless, external self-determination has occurred outside of...23 Sep The Unwilling or Unable Doctrine Comes to Life
...In other words, this falls under the inherent right of self-defense that is carved out by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force contained in article 2 of the U.N. Charter. The U.S. is intervening militarily to vindicate Iraq’s self-defense interest as a case of individual or collective self-defense. A few observations here: First, this was a predictable development. I don’t see another avenue for the U.S. to legally defend the intervention, unless it wanted to rely on the...