Search: self-defense
14 Feb Symposium on Rewriting Histories of the Use of Force: Of Rules and Exceptions in Jus ad Bellum
...cases in which states were entitled to use force. These included restoring the balance of power and preserving the political equilibrium between the great powers of Europe, suppressing revolts and threats to monarchical rule, recovering public or private debts, avenging injuries or insults to citizens or damages to their property or interests, enforcing treaty obligations, implementing arbitral awards, upholding the right to engage in commerce, and protecting religious minorities. To justify intervention in these situations, a variety of doctrines were invoked, such as self-defense, self-help, necessity, reprisals, and retorsions. Ultimately,...08 Jul Guest Post: Military Members Claiming Self-Defence During Armed Conflict–Often Misguided and Unhelpful
...and ask in what context is the term ‘self-defence’ being used. Our chapter is about an individual claiming self-defence when facing potential criminal (or disciplinary) charges. It is not about a State’s right of self-defence under article 51 UN Charter (or customary international law).. Whether or not a State has a right to use force in national self-defence is a separate and distinct issue from whether an individual is not guilty of crime under the relevant self-defence provisions pertaining in a particular criminal jurisdiction. Combatant’s privilege Self-defence has a narrower...20 Apr Guest Post: The Status of the Territory Unchanged: Russia’s Treaties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia
...ad bellum arguments may be used in interpreting IHL. (M. Sassòli, A.A Bouvier, et al., How Does Law Protect In War? ICRC, Vol. I, 2006, p. 103) Occupation Law and Self-Determination In light of the second question, I argue that a situation of occupation may end with self-determination. However, resorting to self-determination may only be justified once the effective control of the occupant over the territory is completely relinquished and the process of self-determination is free from any third-party interference, particularly by the former occupant. Furthermore, self-determination, if exercised...
03 Sep Occupation and Self-Defence in the Case of Palestine
this post I will try to apply this lens to the context of Israel’s continuous occupation of Palestinian territories and whether it could support a legal basis for a Palestinian right to self-defence. Issues of Palestinian statehood, the role of non-state actors, and the right to self-determination present challenges to this idea. The article talks specifically of disputes where one state has invaded and occupied the territory of another, triggering their right to self-defence. So long as the occupation continues, the attack does not truly cease. To support this claim,...28 Oct More Memos Anyone?
...in the past (including some intense back-and-forth between Kevin Heller and Marty Lederman). I wanted to make two quick points about the nature of this debate. First, I think the discourse is focused far too much on customary international law, which to my mind is of limited–or even no–relevance to the issue. (In this respect, various statements regarding self-defense from the ICJ, including in Nicaragua, have contributed to this confusion.) In reality, the law of self-defense is a question of treaty interpretation, governed by article 51, which recognizes and preserves,...22 Jan John Bellinger Endorses a Not-Legal Military Intervention in Syria
...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...08 May Charlie Dunlap’s Defence of Israel’s Attacks on Hezbollah in Syria
...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...20 Apr Why Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention Is Illegal and Potentially Criminal
...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...05 Feb White Paper
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...15 Jan Armed Conflict With Al Qaida: A Reply
...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...