Search: self-defense
06 May The Armed Conflict with Al Qaeda
an important distinction, as you recognize but don't fully analyze. To successfully support such attacks as an independent act of self-defense, the USG must necessarily believe that IHL applies (perhaps only by analogy) to acts of self-defense against non-state actors even if hostilities with them do not meet the oft-asserted customary international law (CIL) duration, intensity and organization thresholds to establish a NIAC. I think this is what Marty earlier stated as his understanding of the USG view, and Michael Lewis argues to be state practice as well. Kevin's (and...21 Nov LJIL Symposium: A Response to Professor Brad R. Roth on (Empty?) Promises of Self-Determination
not as correct application of the uti possidetis and self-determination principles in post-Cold War settings. He is also right, as he argues in his recent book, that cases such as Kosovo “bespeak[] the ad hoc nature of the international order’s solutions” to self-determination conflicts around the world. But, in the structure of his overarching argument, the doctrinal interpretation of self-determination is only one argument against a more normatively generous understanding of self-determination in the post-colonial context. Roth’s insistence on the combination of the principle of effectivity and non-intervention, as the...11 Jul Guest Post: Unit Self-Defence
...law and legal consequences but is not a legal term in and of itself. Considered that way, unit self-defence can be thought of as: a) a form of delegated authority from the national command chain of a State to exercise a State’s right of national self-defence in limited circumstances and in a constrained fashion; b) a reminder of the criminal law authority to act in self-defence to protect oneself and protect others, (recalling that the criminal law concept of self-defence allows a person to not only defend his or herself,...11 Nov A Head-Spinning Self-Execution Story
know) unprecedented move within a treaty text (made all the more interesting since it came from an Administration that in other contexts was openly hostile to self-executing treaties, not to mention that the other countries involved do not permit self-execution within their respective domestic systems). Fast forward to this fall, when the U.S. Senate considered giving advice and consent to these treaties. Unlike the federal government, however, the Senate was less sanguine about the prospect of a self-executing treaty trumping the AECA. As a result, the Senate conditioned U.S. ratification...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...