Search: self-defense

...must comply with the right towards people under and outside their jurisdiction especially when the latter ‘are not able to exercise or have been deprived of their right to self-determination’ (Mornah case, para 299). There are neither geographic nor temporal limitations. Third, the practice of African states and the African Charter’s primary monitoring body—The African Commission—is largely in favour of the right of Palestinians to self-determination and exercise of their rights as free people. No African country voted against the UN General Assembly Resolution of 10 May 2024 that determined...

...a right nor necessarily illegal. It is treated as a fact: a secession either was successful, it was not, or it is still being contested. There is, however, a right to self-determination, which is understood to be, for communities that are not colonies and are within existing states, meaningful political participation and the pursuit of economic, social and cultural development under the auspices of that existing state, in this case Ukraine. This conception of internal self-determination makes self-determination closely related to the respect of minority rights and it does not...

...co-belligerent that has refused to implement UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its armed forces from the occupied Arab territories. It has refused to permit the deployment of a NATO or other international peacekeeping force in the Palestinian territories as well. Nothing has really changed since 2003 when the ICJ advised that Israel had contributed to the creation of an illegal situation and that it can't rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to...

...ad bellum issue does not arise, but there still might or might not be violations of the jus in bello. Syria certainly poses a jus ad bellum issue, but there the US justification might not be preemptive self-defense, but self-defense against an armed attack that was already committed by a non-state actor operating from Syrian territory, which Syria failed to prevent. In any case it is hard to say more about these events without knowing much, much more about the actual facts. Guneysu In addition to what Milan has written,...

...alternative action such as going to the police. They obviously did go to the authorities. So this is quite different from a traditional duress defense, where a defendant doesn't have time to do anything but the illegal act. Here, they went to the authorities and were told not to do the illegal act. SteveLaudig Could the hostage himself be prosecuted were he to pay a ransom. How does self defense and defense of others play in here? Perry Bechky Jens, I just noticed your post, just under the wire for...

...of defense attorneys made statements such as “judges do not like political arguments” and “such arguments are generally useless.” This suggested to me that they decided not to make political arguments at least in part because they thought the arguments are not likely to be successful. I do agree that these comments do not provide a full explanation why defense attorneys refrain from political arguments, and I offered other explanations of the defense attorneys’ decision to do so –although these explanations were perhaps more tentative than I meant them to...

[Maya Nirula is a dual-qualified international human rights lawyer with multi-jurisdictional experience consulting and litigating on issues of business and human rights] Recapitulation This is the second of a two-part series, the Role of Business in War. Part I: The Old Offense evaluated the interaction between International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and International Criminal law (ICL) in governing gross human rights abuses and corporate complicity. Part II: A Different Defense will examine a potential new defense to such complicity that requires businesses to integrate IHL and...

John C. Dehn I have a question for those who claim national defense might be - in some circumstances - separate from armed conflict need not comply with the laws of war. I think Jordan Paust is in this camp (but do not wish to speak for him). I am uncertain the full extent of Ken Anderson's views on the applicability of IHL to acts of national self defense. The question is this: Can Omar Khadr successfully raise individual self defense or defense of others in response to a charge...

...areas. Also, by July 2011 a significant number of countries had recognized the NTC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people and the NTC thereafter effectively consented to NATO's use of armed force in their defense (collective self-defense) and for self-determination assistance against a regime engaged in ongoing armed attacks on Libyan civilians (and, therefore, in violation of self-determination -- e.g., 1970 Dec. Prin. I.L.). Therefore, NATO's use of force in Libya was permissible (1) within the S.C. mandate, and (2) as (a) collective self-defense, and (b) self-determination assistance....

...in the OPT, including the Gaza Strip, has now been determined by the Court to be a violation of article 2(4) of the UN Charter, it qualifies as an aggression. One result of this is that the occupation cannot be justified by arguments of self-defence. Under international law, there is no self-defence justification for aggression, full stop. Quite the contrary. If any State enjoys a right of self-defence in this situation it is the State of Palestine, not Israel. Because Palestine enjoys an inherent right of self-defence and is the...

...implementation of it, invoke the idea of a right of self-determination in international law vested in the inhabitants of the territory. Typically, they associate this, somewhat vaguely, with Wilsonian self-determination and the League of Nations. However, the view of international lawyers is that in this period there was no legal right of external self-determination—the right to be free from colonial rule—for colonial peoples. This came later, in the second half of the 20th Century. Thus, the Palestinian people may have that legal right now, but they did not have it...

over treaty self-execution. Bradley discusses scenarios in which the constitutional separation of powers renders treaties non-self-executing. But at the core of the debate over non-self-execution are differing perspectives on the meaning of the Supremacy Clause. As I have discussed elsewhere, those who favor self-execution point first to the Supremacy Clause in support of their position. Those who see more room for non-self-execution do not find the Supremacy Clause dispositive. The majority in Medellín v. Texas took the latter position, endorsing a broad notion of non-self-execution. The dissent, reling heavily on...