In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

06 May

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,...
06.05.11 | |

02 Oct

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...
02.10.12 | |

06 Apr

...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...
06.04.12 | |

12 May

...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...
12.05.20 | |

19 Aug

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...
19.08.10 | |

12 Aug

[Žygimantas Juška is a member of the defense team of Radovan Karadžić] One of the most high-profile cases before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)— Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić —provides an opportunity to propose changes for the standby counsel model. Nevertheless, the ICTY has struggled to balance the effectiveness of standby counsel and its huge financial burden on the Tribunal. The ICTY previously permitted self-representation in the two high-profile cases— Prosecutor v. Milošević and Prosecutor v. Šešelj —and in each, the Tribunal permitted self-representation but soon encountered...
12.08.13 | |

06 Feb

...self-determination by forming the neighbouring Albania. By arguing that the Albanian minority in Serbia has that same right you are arguing that ethnic minorities in any country have a right to self-determination irrespective of wheter a "motherland" country exists or not which means that any nation has the right to exercise its self-determination right by forming as many states as it pleases in countries which host its ethnic minorities and that's simply not the case. Minorities can exercise their right to self-determination to the level of cultural autonomy but not...
06.02.07 | |

22 Oct

of self-defense. E.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=2061835 --and, yes, the U.S. claim of self-defense would be appropriate -- http://ssrn.com/abstract=2165278 ; http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718548 , etc. Ian Henderson "that (obviously) the U.S. already takes the view that targeted killings against non-state actors that have, or are planning to, carry out attacks on U.S. persons or property could be justified as an act of self-defense." (emphasis added) Is there some statement from USG officials that supports the view that self-defence authroises targeted killings purely on the basis of 'have' carried out an attack? Wouldn't it be the...
22.10.12 | |

29 Mar

...that only nations may be parties in contentious cases before the ICJ suggest that ICJ decisions are non-self-executing? How relevant is it that other nations apparently do not treat ICJ judgments as binding in their domestic courts? 3. What position does the Court take regarding whether Article 36 of the VCCR is self-executing? What is the position of the dissent on this issue? If Article 36 of the VCCR is self-executing, why shouldn’t the ICJ’s judgment concerning the effect of Article 36 also be self-executing? Do you agree or disagree...
29.03.08 | |

11 Apr

...or a state-to-state, state-to-nation, state-to-peoples armed conflict). Jordan Also, an "imminent threat" is not even a present threat. Some who use this phrase might have in mind the old unacceptable Bush Doctrine (i.e., emerging threat) and some might have in mind anticipatory self-defense when an armed attack is imminent (which is contrary to the language of UN art. 51). Moreover, the debate between the US and UK re: The Caroline had nothing to do with anticipatory self-defense or whether an attack by the rebels, etc. was "imminent." Armed attacks by...
11.04.13 | |

25 Jan

...bomb or missile and it did not apparently kill anyone. Even if Stuxnet was a use of force, we could debate whether it was authorized by the U.N. Charter or self-defense. The UN Security Council, for example, has invoked Article 41 in dealing with Iran’s nuclear programs, although I’ve not had time to vet whether a Stuxnet-like attack could be interpreted as covered under any of the applicable resolutions. Similarly, the self-defense arguments are likely to be controversial, especially if they rely on anticipatory self-defense in light of Iran’s stated...
25.01.11 | |

12 Sep

attacks. Some are checking to see whether there are even links with al-Qaeda. I can envision a circumstance where a targeting takes place in Libya with the special consent of Libya, although that is not required under Article 51 of the Charter, and a targeting in some other country. I would imagine that Libya might even request assitance by the U.S. in what would be collective self-defense, and I do not think that Article 51 should be read to exclude self-defense engaged in by a state (like Libya) against non-state...
12.09.12 | |