In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

12 Nov

...that neither the prohibition of force nor the right of self-defense applies to Israel’s use of force in Gaza. But if the prohibition of force is engaged by the forcible deprivation of self-determination, then it might be engaged by Israel’s use of force in Gaza whether Palestine is a State or a self-determination unit. This would not mean that Israel’s right of self-defense is engaged by attacks by non-state actors arising from occupied territory, let alone that its military campaign is either necessary or proportionate. But it might shift the...
12.11.24 | |

11 Apr

...of armed attacks, on U.S. military and other personel in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Therefore, the U.S. has a continual right of self-defense to target those who are DPAA (directly participating in armed attacks). Also, it is logical and policy-serving to use, as Preston states, "the four basic principles in the law of armed conflict governing the use of force: Necessity, Distinction, Proportionality, and Humanity" when engaging in lawful self-defense targetings under UN 51, since, my gosh, I wrote similarly, self-defense targetings are legally conditioned by general principles of reasonable necessity...
11.04.12 | |

14 Jul

...argument that Israel has any respect whatsoever for the principle of proportionality. Let's not forget what is still going on in the Gaza Strip. No small bit of irony in Israel calling upon Lebanon to recognize UN resolutions when Israel has historically demonstrated contempt for same in its own case. And I'm touched about all of the concern for the question of Israeli self-defense: where is/was such concern for the Palestinian right to self-defense, particularly given the fact that they have been denied the right to self-determination and the asymmetrical...
14.07.06 | |

22 May

...Higher Administrative Court were much more extensive, surpassing previous arguments in international law. The German government supported the expansion of the right to self-defense, as well as the US position of preventive self-defense. This would allow for preventive self-defense in future, non-defined attacks. The court rejecting this view in its decision. The proceedings are pending before the Federal Administrative Court, as the Ministry of Defense appealed the case. Does international humanitarian law restrict drone strikes? Jus ad bellum is only part of the international law debate around the use of...
22.05.20 | |

19 Mar

new president. As Cuddy explains, the Nixon administration quickly abandoned the Johnson administration’s quite traditional view of self-defense. In 1970, John Stevenson, the State Department’s new Legal Advisor, issued a memo rejecting the idea that self-defense on neutral territory was limited to situations in which the neutral state was complicit in the armed attacks. In his view — adopted by the Nixon administration — self-defense was permissible whenever the neutral state “cannot or will not” prevent the unneutral use of its territory (pp. 83-84): Stevenson noted that “it was impossible...
19.03.19 | |

17 Oct

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....
17.10.09 | |

20 May

...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...
20.05.13 | |

15 Feb

...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...
15.02.13 | |

06 Jun

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...
06.06.09 | |

12 Mar

...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...
12.03.15 | |

28 Sep

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...
28.09.17 | |

23 Sep

...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...
23.09.14 | |