Search: self-defense
25 Mar Does the Tallinn Manual Allow States to Kill Hackers? Not Really.
...legitimate act of self-defense under Art. 51. On the contrary, the provision concerning self-defense — Rule 13 — is located in the section of the Manual that exclusively addresses the jus ad bellum. The Manual’s commentary to Rule 13 also continually emphasizes that what is at stake in an act of self-defence is whether the attacked state’s sovereignty has been violated. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the section of the Manual that discusses “attacks generally” specifically states (p. 105) that “[t]he law of armed conflict applies to the targeting of...
20 Feb Tertium datur: A Step Towards Squaring the Circle on the Current Meaning of Self-defence?
the use of military force under customary international law, govern the relations between ISIS and States? In the affirmative, the use of unilateral force against ISIS must be justified as self-defense. Such construction would be consistent with Article 51 interpreted as allowing a State to react militarily to an armed attack – including terrorist attacks – attributable to a subject of international law other than States. From this perspective, the military action against ISIS must keep a defensive character and comply inter alia with the principle of proportionality in the...25 Apr The Functional Approach to the Occupation of the Gaza Strip and the Right to Self-Determination
...a motivation for complete withdrawal. And a complete withdrawal will allow the space for genuine self-government. Even if one accepts that the functional approach struggles from the perspective of self-determination, this does not answer how this issue should be balanced against other considerations, such as the protection of civilians. I would therefore be very interested to hear the views of my fellow participants in this symposium on how much significance they think should be placed in the self-determination angle when assessing the merits of the functional approach; and, of course,...
07 Feb Kazakhstan: Another Intervention by Invitation that Played Out as Expected
...as that they intervene to counter terrorism, address a threat to their national security (sometimes with the claim of self-defense) or to the region, counter a prior illegal intervention in the inviting State, assist the inviting State in the exercise of its collective self-defense, rescue nationals or foreigners, maintain law and order, bring stability, protect vital infrastructure, prevent a humanitarian crisis or genocide, protect the democratically elected government, or ensure a secure environment for the elections, or that they are not taking a side in the internal conflict. The controversy...07 Jun More Questions for Ken
attack on a US city. Pakistan somehow manages to get their hands on the CIA agent who piloted the drone and charges him with murder in a domestic Pakistani court. What is the role of self-defense in that prosecution? Does it divest the court of jurisdiction? Is it an affirmative defense? And who invokes it — the CIA agent? The US government? Scenario 2: The CIA kills Mephistopheles in Pakistan using a drone, because the Pakistani military is either unwilling or unable to prevent him from carrying out his dirty-bomb...30 Aug Not Even the Brits Can Make the Case Bombing Syria Is Lawful
hands of groups who are actively trying to do the United States or U.S. allies in the region harm – an inclination the current Syrian regime has mostly not shown in this conflict. In this sense, the purpose seems better understood as a modified and stunningly broad theory of anticipatory self-defense. But it stretches anticipatory self-defense to absurd proportions to suggest that State A can use force against State B because there’s a chance State B’s weapons might someday be acquired by Actor C, which might then use weapons formerly...12 May States Are Failing Us in Syria — Not International Law
...national interests. Why invoke an inherently selfish rationale such as self-defence as a pretext for aggression when you could invoke humanitarian intervention instead? Who is opposed to helping innocent civilians? And if we take your land and oil and other resources along the way, well, we have to pay for our selflessness somehow, don’t we? Legalising UHI, in short, will not lead to more humanitarian uses of force. It will lead to more aggression. And that is because international law is not the problem in Syria and elsewhere. States are....10 Dec Obama’s Hawkish Nobel Lecture
...legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified. / And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor." His embrace of defensive use of force thus doesn't strike me as either novel or worrying per se, although Obama didn't go on to offer his interpretation of self-defence - nonetheless, I don't think he understands it as broadly as the Bush administration did (but we will probably get a clearer picture with the Quadrennial Defense Review and...20 Feb Kosovo’s Declaration: Analyzing the Legal Issues of Secession and Recognition
...Supreme Court of Canada grappled with questions of self-determination and secession in re Secession of Quebec. The Canadian court found that: [t]he recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination—a people’s pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises only in the most extreme cases and, even...