Search: self-defense
18 Jun Bombing Iraq Doesn’t Just Pose Serious Questions of Domestic Law, International Law May Be a Problem, Too
self-defense and collective self-defense under U.N. Article 51 and there are no limitations with respect to the type of actor that can trigger an armed attack under Art. 51, esp. after S.C. and NATO recognitions that the 9/11 attacks triggered the inherent right of self-defense and over 53 writers have recognized that non-state actor armed attacks can trigger UN 51 -- see, e.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 Under the U.S. Constitution, the President has the constitutionally-based power to authorize use of armed force in self and collective self-defensse. See, e.g., U.S. Const., art....10 Jul Why Japan Would Violate International Law If It Militarily Intervened to Defend Taiwan (But Why Japan Should Do So Anyway)
...defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack. In his post, Keck notes that Japan’s decision to reinterpret its constitution does NOT allow Japan to fully exercise its rights to collective self-defense under international law, but it does allow Japan to provide military support to allies where Japan itself is threatened. But he then argues that even under this more narrow “collective self-defense” right, Japan could (and probably would) intervene to assist Taiwan in a military defense against a Chinese invasion. I think this could be right as a matter of Japanese...29 Jan Does the Six Day War Support “Elongated” Imminence?
...quoted. He addressed the means or method chosen by the UK-Canadians in the actual context of their attack on the Caroline when they could have waited in those days until the vessel re-entered Canadian waters. Webster spoke of "necessity of THAT self-defense ... leaving no choice of MEANS" and since the ACT, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it"! Benjamin Davis People may have not seen John B. Quigley's The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense: Questioning the Legal Basis for...01 Mar YJIL Online Symposium: Second Response to Michael Glennon
...discussion. But the point here is that an existing structure and set of norms do exist for determining whether a given use of force is either an illegal act of aggression under the Charter or a legitimate exercise of the right of self-defense under the Charter. It should be recalled that that right of self-defense is subject to Security Council oversight. It may be exercised until such time as the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security; moreover, all such acts must be...
07 Oct Killing in the Name: Three Legal Paradigms to Evaluate the Legality of US Actions in the Caribbean (Part I)
...legally addressed – under regimes like those of the Palermo Convention dealing with transnational organized crime. Even if the material requirement for self-defense is ignored, there is a factual point that erodes the credibility of any claim of self-defense. There were, in fact, less deadly means to halt the particular drug-run the attack sought to stop, as Secretary Rubio indicated. It was a choice to utilize deadly force instead of capturing or interdicting in some other way. That alone negates the necessity and proportionality of using force in self-defense and...26 Oct The Mary Ellen O’Connell and Benjamin Wittes Debate on Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare
...is sufficiently co-belligerent with AQ proper; or else, second, that it is an independent exercise of self-defense under international law. I agree that each is available, plausibly and in good faith; I have strenuously argued the case for self-defense as the correct, but not exclusive, rationale in the past. But as more information has become publicly available on the factual nature of AQAP and its relationship to AQ, I believe that the armed conflict rationale has grown stronger as a factual characterization, and I think that true of Somalia as...30 Aug Jus Cogens Norms and The Historical Accident of Influential States
...it does have exceptions, namely self-defense under Article 51 and SC authorization under Chapter VII. Even if we put aside the many shady areas when it comes to self-defense, e.g. defense against non-state actors or the protection of nationals, how can the prohibition against the use of force be jus cogens if it has exceptions to it? But, then again, how can it NOT be jus cogens when the whole point of modern international law is to put a stop to the scourge of war, which has caused untold suffering...
20 Jan Geoengineering and the Use of Force
...to bear for a relaxation of the jus ad bellum—claims in favor of preventative self-defense and the unwilling or unable doctrine similarly tried to undermine the standards relating to the scale, gravity, attribution, and imminence of armed attacks as the triggering condition for self-defense. All of these efforts have in one way or another sought to alter the nature or timing of the acts that successfully trigger the right of self-defense. The imminent launch of a geoengineering effort that is thought likely to risk catastrophic climate consequences may not fit...