In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

16 Apr

“has led to some positive developments for the defense.” She does not cite to any statements by defense attorneys here, and for good reason: I doubt that any of the attorneys she surveyed share her opinion. Trimmed indictments, (a bit) less cumulative evidence, and speedier trials only marginally benefit the defense, and those benefits are vastly outweighed by the costs that Jenia mentions, particularly limits on the defendant’s right to confront witnesses and to prepare an effective defense. Moreover, Jenia fails to mention the Completion Strategy’s most significant cost: the...
16.04.08 | |

08 Nov

The latter would trigger self-defense, while the former only peaceful settlement mechanisms. This way, the US would not be able to invoke self-defense to unilaterally intervene in Latin America. The US opposed to this so much that its State Secretary himself decided to go straight to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister’s hotel room and try to change his mind. Venezuelan Minister Morales told him that a distinction was necessary because it is not as easy to determine who is the aggressor in intra-continental conflicts as it is in extra-continental ones. In...
08.11.19 | |

23 Oct

the rescue of migrants at sea, the prohibition of Nazi symbols, or international prosecution of German ISIS affiliates. The opinion starts with emphasizing the similarities between “Operation Peace Spring” and Turkey’s previous invasion in Afrin (the research services also issued numerous opinions on this subject-matter). On this basis, it (again) addresses the validity of self-defense against non-state actors and Turkey’s reference to the 1998 Adana agreement with Syria.  Self-defense against quasi-de-facto-regimes permissible The PYD/YPG has successfully consolidated itself in what they call Rojava already in the early phase of the Syria war. Their autonomy...
23.10.19 | |

13 Apr

reason to believe there will be someone left alive to fight the ensuing war, the War Powers Act explicitly grants the President the power to use military force in self defense for a limited period of time. Then he must consult with Congress and get further approval. However, in the quoted paraphrase of the Koh remarks, there is nothing to suggest the paper was endorsing an independent power of the President. "Self defense" is a justification for the use of military force by the entire US government and not one...
13.04.10 | |

20 Jan

...could only target military objects or soldiers already threatening the lives of others but not those about to be deployed to the battlefield at a later stage. Excluding the very first shot from the application of international humanitarian law becomes even more problematic in situations of pre-emptive self-defense. After all, one would have to extend the restrictive imminence-standard under human rights law to the right to self-defense. Only then it would be ensured that action taken in self-defense also conforms to human rights law et vice versa. Otherwise, the defending...
20.01.20 | |

04 May

...self-defense in more recent years and somewhat significantly in law enforcement. In this vision, the SEAL in the room would be principally trained and operating in a law of war or self-defense vision which would make this a lawful kill while the actual mission that the CIA was putting them into would be construed as a law enforcement mission with its more restrictive rules. In other words, the CIA plays the Defense department types in this game by having the people doing the kill come from a legal training tradition...
04.05.11 | |

22 Dec

...act of self-defense should be proportional to the attack and that some skirmishes are of such a minimal security threat as to not require any response beyond the fighting of the skirmish itself. I am curious to see if this is a point on which other commentators will focus. (The Commission also noted that Eritrea never invoked Article 51 or notified the Security Council of its acts as self-defense until the Commission hearing.) The Commission then walked through the facts leading up to the Eritrean incursion into Ethiopia and reiterated...
22.12.05 | |

19 Sep

one hand, the SFRC seems to accept the Supreme Court’s preference for clear statements of the treaty-makers’ intent as to the treaty’s self- or non-self-executing status (whereas previously, I believe the SFRC and the Executive often assumed a treaty was self-executing unless they as the treaty-makers expressed a contrary intent). Thus, the inclusion of declarations of self-execution and non-self-execution mark a new Senate practice. And it may actually prove helpful going forward if it means that the Senate (and by extension the Executive) think through and express views on the...
19.09.08 | |

05 May

...the right of national self defense exercised here with an individual's right of self defense. Only the former can produce a state of armed conflict; and once it has, then individual right's of self defense become largely subsumed by the scope of the combatant's privilege: which is to kill and be killed in turn. So Koh, it seems to me, has this right, and the ROE and actions taken under the ROE to kill bin Laden on sight legal in that view. I wish our national security team had taken...
05.05.11 | |

08 Aug

use force for 'peace making'. Lacking a SC authorisation, the question is whether Russia's use of force can be justified by Article 51 or some ingenious customary law right. First of all, is this collective self-defence? Georgian attack on S-Ossetia per se is not an armed attack that Russia could respond to with collective self-defence, since S-Ossetia is not a State for the purpose of UN Charter and thus does not enjoy the right to be protected from military force by itself or by States that are willing to help...
08.08.08 | |

18 Mar

military would exercise its obligation of self-defense. Operationally, it is difficult to develop an effective response when we do not know who is responsible for an “attack”; however, the circumstances may be such that at least some level of mitigating action can be taken even when we are not certain who is responsible. Regardless whether we know who is responsible, international law requires that our use of force in self-defense be proportional and discriminate. Neither proportionality nor discrimination requires that we know who is responsible before we take defensive action....
18.03.14 | |

12 Jan

justifications for drone strikes from Afghanistan to Somalia. Within armed conflict, parties to the conflict have the right to use lethal force in the first resort against enemy forces, which includes, as detailed below, members of the regular armed forces, members of organized armed groups or civilians directly participating in hostilities. International law also recognizes the right of states to use force in self-defense in certain circumscribed circumstances. For the past several years, the United States has relied on both armed conflict and self-defense as legal justifications for targeted strikes...
12.01.12 | |