Search: self-defense

...obligation to respect the right to self-determination is erga omnes (para 155), meaning that all States have a legal interest in the protection of the right. Turning to the right to self-determination as it pertains to Palestinians, UN General Assembly Resolutions have consistently recognised the right of Palestinians to self-determination, have condemned Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories, and have expressed a determination to end Israeli occupation and fulfil the vision of a two-state solution. Indeed, as recently as 17 December 2024, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed the right of...

...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,...

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....

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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,...

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...

...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...

...the U.N. Charter. While the former is self-explanatory, the latter merits some clarifications. First, in order for a state to invoke its right to self-defense, it must be under an armed attack or under the threat of an armed attack; the latter implies a sufficiently grave incident of armed force (Nicaragua v. U.S. ICJ case, paras. 195 and 211; Oil Platforms ICJ case, para. 51). Second, any act of self-defense must be necessary and proportionate (Nicaragua v. U.S. ICJ case, para. 194 and 237). Other possible “exceptions” to the prohibition...