Search: self-defense

...countries, is a significant development. The legitimate govt. is no longer that of Assad, the rebels are now those under Assad's power, the new legitimate govt. and rep. of the Syrian people can request outside assistance -- which can be termed self-determination assistance and/or collective self-defense. He is absolutely wrong that what is happening in Syria is the internal affair "of" Syria. Crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights violations, and self-determination are not simplistically the internal affair of a single state! He is absolutely wrong that only the SC...

...Israel’s attacks “may simply reflect that the bulk of the international community finds that the use of force under these circumstances is an acceptable act in anticipatory self-defense.” He cites only two states in defence of the idea that the “international community” accepts this type of anticipatory self-defence: the US and the UK. Needless to say, two Global North states known for their aggressive interpretation of the jus ad bellum do not an “international community” make. Moreover, Charlie fails to acknowledge the repeated denunciations of anticipatory self-defence by the Non-Aligned...

...ISIS or the Assad regime, IL does not prohibit you from doing so. It doesn't follow that States may use force against other States to help persons exercise their right of personal self-defense. According to the UN Charter, States may use force against other States only in national self-defense, individual or collective, “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Of course, we could change international law to permit States to use force against other States in defense of persons as well as in defense of...

self defense recognized in international law.”) (p.2) So perhaps the idea is that whatever Article II power the President has under the Constitution, it extends only so far as (or is co-extensive with) a state’s ability to use force in self-defense under international law. Ok, so Article 51 (which the paper does not quote) says: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary...

...refuse to cooperate with the United States as much as they would if the United States had adopted (and complied with) a broad interpretation? The U.S. has adopted a narrow interpretation a hair’s breadth away from the null interpretation. John says, “A state acting in self-defense must comply with the UN Charter and fundamental law of war principles.” On the American position, the U.S. is complying with the UN Charter because that document allows it to go to war, in self-defense, against a non-state entity; so no constraint there. As...

...challenge is trying to delineate the contours of what sort of force is permitted in self-defence. I consider the correct interpretation of the rule prohibiting force demands that acts of self-defence have to be judged against what is proportionate in the circumstances at the time, rather than the idea that once an attack has occurred a state is entitled to use force until it has achieved some sort of victory. The need to take seriously the prohibition on unnecessary and disproportionate force in self-defence has never been more urgent. Self-defence...

...invasion, understood as the military activities encompassing the acts listed under Article 8bis (2)(a)-(d), these requirements appear to be met. As argued below, it is possible to consider this unlawful use of force: (1) to be in violation of the right to self-determination; (2) to bear similar gravity and nature as the acts under Article 7(1)(a)-(j); and (3) to have resulted in great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental/physical health.    The Right to Self- Determination The right to self-determination, enshrined in multiple covenants (UN Charter, Art.1(2),...

or ethnic criteria, given the lack of a permanent or standard definition for the term people. Varying uneven responses in self-determination contexts such as Rojava, the Kurdistan Region, Donetsk and Luhansk, have advanced some cases for self-determination while also setting back others, including the Kurdish people. As a matter of international practice, not all peoples are entitled to exercise self-determination as some peoples’ de facto nationhood is deemed less legitimate than that of others. Self-determination is still in practice a Eurocentric concept, whereas in the Middle East self-determination has remained...

...acts by private actors (as opposed to acts by state militaries) could trigger a right of self-defense where the government of the host state was unable or unwilling to take action; and, second, whether the threat posed by those private actors satisfied the conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy so that the British action would be justified. But there was no question that the acts of private actors could trigger the right of self-defense where the host government was unable or unwilling to deal with the situation. Secretary Webster may...

show up unless the pirates shoot first. Nor are they willing to try them, or punish them, given various legal protections that the pirates now enjoy under international law and the U.S. constitutional defenses they can probably raise against a U.S. prosecution (gotta love that Boumediene case, just gotta love it). Self-help might actually be the most effective measure, although I’d have to think about what legal rules of engagement would apply to a merchant mariner shooting at a pirate. Ironically, the merchant mariner (acting in self-defense) is probably legally...

...to provide him with a zealous defense. A defense attorney does not have to like his client to provide him with a zealous defense. But a defense attorney cannot provide his client with a zealous defense unless he is is capable of reconciling himself to the possibility that his efforts might lead to his client being acquitted. The ability to accept that possibility is, I believe, the sine qua non of effective representation. It is not enough for a defense attorney to have an abstract commitment to the idea that...

of Ukraine. The Court was not as averse to the phrase ‘self-defence’ as it was in South Africa v Israel, and noted on several occasions Russia’s justification of (collective) self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter for its ‘special military operation’ (paras 32, 33, 39 and 46). At play here was not whether the prohibition of genocide ‘overrode’ (to use Judge Robinson’s terminology) the right of self-defence, but rather whether the right of self-defence was overridden by another jus cogens norm, that is, the obligation to refrain from acts...