Search: self-defense

...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...

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...

about non-self-execution. Indeed, Prof. Ku appears to be misconceptualizing the issue of non-self-execution. A treaty provision is non-self-executing only as a factual matter, namely, a political branch has not performed some overt act to implement a treaty duty requiring the performance of an overt act. Declaring a treaty provision, which requires a party to not perform some overt act, to be non-self-executing is non-sensical. Therefore, when the President or Senate makes a declaration that, e.g., the prohibition of torture under the ICCPR is non-self-executing, this declaration makes no sense because...

...has the right to individual or collective self-defence. Legitimate self-defense can be conducted with conventional or cyber means and has to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality. Furthermore, legitimate self-defense includes preemptive action to respond to a (cyber) armed attack which has “not yet begun, but is imminent and certain, provided that the potential impact of this aggression is sufficiently grave”. At the same time, France rejects the right to use force in preventive self-defense, i.e. when the armed attack is not imminent, but may only potentially occur in...

absolutely necessary”. With all their legal uncertainty, the words ‘imminent danger’ and ‘preemptive strike’ would suggest towards the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. India seemed to stop short of suggesting that. It must have been because if the target is a non-state actor, in this case, JeM, it becomes necessary for India to attribute its actions to the State, in this case, Pakistan. While there is a general feeling among the Indian establishment that some level of State support, arguably, exists in the case...

...will result in what legal exposure. Lack of clarity in the law means manipulators of rules and their language have an easier job expanding the bounds of what is considered to be lawful conduct compared to if the law were clearer. In this respect, there is a concept currently part of the law governing the use of force that provides space for advancing legal arguments that expand the bounds of what can be considered legally permissible conduct: anticipatory self-defence. Anticipatory self-defence is understood here as an armed attack by a...

...concept of self-defense based on its use in the Caroline standard. Since the adoption of the UN Charter there has been debate about whether the “inherent right” of self-defense contained in Article 51 is broader or narrower than the Caroline standard. While that question has not been definitively settled, it is fair to say that if Israel’s action in the 1967 war was justified by Article 51 (something that most states, if not most scholars, seem to agree with), then Article 51 “imminence” is broader than Caroline “imminence”. If for...

...to trigger an Article 51 right of self-defense. Although I’d always understood that simply because something constituted a use of force, that didn’t mean that it rose to the level of an armed attack for self-defense purposes. In other words, there is a gap between armed attack and force. But at least one US government lawyer suggested at this conference that there is no such gap in cyberspace, and that this may even be the official US Government position for cyberspace. I’d be interested in what readers make of this...