Search: self-defense

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...

...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....

Mihai Martoiu Ticu As long as I can't sue U.S. in any international court for killing me, killing me remains illegal. JordanPaust Response... As we thought, self-defense targeting and law of war principles; but the Administration still believes that the U.S. can be at "war" with a mere terrorist organization that does not even reach the status of an "insurgency," much less a "belligerency" under international law. As noted in my article on Self-Defense Targeting, the U.S. does not need to use the war paradigm when the self-defense paradigm is...

...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...

...best appreciated by looking to the history of self-determination. Self-determination has always been a controversial concept. From its earliest days it has been seen as deeply subversive, but it is at once more radical and more modest that is often appreciated. In the first place, although self-determination is intimately connected to secession, the two are not synonymous. I suggest self-determination claims may be subdivided into four categories: political self-determination (often called ‘internal’), secessionary self-determination (‘external’), remedial self-determination (whereby a serious and prolonged denial of political self-determination results in a right...

...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...

...context of the system that generates them, namely, a self-perpetuating occupation. By so doing, the COI evaluated such a system and reached the inevitable conclusion that, because of its perpetual and annexationist character, Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territory is itself unlawful and, therefore, must immediately be terminated. Notably, from the report’s examination it appears that the COI considered illegality as a consequence of Israel’s unlawful behaviour in the context of an otherwise lawful occupation. In another words, had Israel respected the law of occupation, international human rights law...

If I were the Obama administration, I would be looking to put together an ad hoc task force of senior administration lawyers, led by Harold Koh, to defend the following propositions as matters of law. It is: okay to enter a country that is “unable or unwilling,” [temporarily recall Deeks to DOS] okay to treat it as armed conflict under jus ad bellum justification of self-defense, okay not to undertake the action as law enforcement, versus attack in armed conflict, okay to use lethal force, okay to attack without warning,...

...to engage in self-defense was anachronistic in the modern age of weapons technology. When one of my students asked where you draw the line in asserting a claim of preemptive self-defense, Bolton said he was not interested in theoretical questions. “You must establish that you are actually engaging in self-defense,” Bolton reasoned, “it cannot be mere rhetoric.” But we need not demand an actual armed attack–the limiting language used in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter–to justify a defensive attack. So there you have it. An unequivocal endorsement by the...

Kevin Jon Heller What exactly is interesting about the self-defense question? No matter what test you adopt, self-defense is forward-looking (to stop an attack in progress or to prevent future attacks), not backward-looking (to punish those who have committed an attack). There is no evidence that the attack on the ambassador was the first of many planned attacks on Americans in Libya; indeed, according to the Washington Post, the US doesn't even believe AQIM directed the attack. So there would be no self-defense justification whatsoever for an armed attack on...

...the territory of a Latin American state in alleged self-defense. This happened, in one way or another, during the Texan Rebellion of 1836; the Blockade of Venezuela of 1901; the Punitive Expedition of 1916; and the Rio Treaty negotiations of 1947, just to name a few examples. This debate has recently exploded into the world stage under the banner of the US’s War on Terror, particularly in the Middle East. This so-called “unwilling or unable” test has featured prominently in academic discussions, but frequently detached from the Latin American history...

states would be forbidden from using their right to self-defense just because the government in Mogadishu did nothing wrong. The same goes for the Hamas government in Gaza. (Which, as noted on this blog, has the unfortunate consequence that captured Hamas fighters must be granted POW status.) Bhanu Tiwari As I followed a link to this The End Of Nations Hub on Hubpages I convinced myself that opinio Juris's commenters have to be able to pass judgment on this link! http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations Ben I find the whole idea rather strange that...