Search: self-defense

itself. This “treaty supremacy” rule, Sloss notes, survived essentially unchallenged until the period immediately following World War II. However, early on, the federal courts adopted an interpretation of the Supremacy Clause according to which some treaties (denominated “non-self-executing”) were considered not to have effect unless legislatively implemented. As Sloss notes, the “non-self-execution” doctrine dates back to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson (1829). Properly understood, however, this doctrine spoke only to the allocation of authority to implement treaties at the federal level, between the legislature and the executive,...

...appoint counsel, who will begin immediately to prepare him or herself to represent the interests of the Accused when the trial resumes, if that should be required. Notwithstanding the appointment of counsel for this specific purpose, the Accused will continue to represent himself, including by dealing with the day-to-day matters that arise, such as the filing of motions and responses to motions filed by the Prosecution, and further preparing himself for the trial. 26. The Trial Chamber encourages the Accused to discuss his defence and co-operate fully with the appointed...

of the pricing flexibility offered by self-publishing. (Notice that the author, not the publisher, gets to decide the appropriate price point for the book). For those interesting in self-publishing ebooks, CNET editor David Carnoy has a nice summary here. You can also self-publish paperback books with print-on-demand (POD) services. Carnoy’s summary of that process is here. BTW, what are the top-selling international relations books on Amazon right now? Two self-published ebooks by journalists, The Hunt for Bin Laden and The Instigators, both short Kindle Single edition books priced at $1.99....

the term "non self-executing" is often used carelessly and inconsistently, the fact remains, as I suspect you know, that the longstanding position of the Executive Branch (one clearly expressed by OLC in the Clinton Administration) is that non self-executing treaties are indeed without domestic legal effect. You may disagree with that view (I myself have my doubts about it), but it's not nearly so self-evidently false as your comment suggests. As for you main point, what we seem to have here are two, possibly conflicting, propositions: (1) Congress did not...

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...

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...

...self-defence of Iraq by a letter of 25 November 2014. The underlying considerations which justified collective self-defence of Iraq for UK activity in Syria in 2014 remain today. The collective self-defence of Iraq provides a clear legal basis for the UK to increase its contribution to the Coalition’s efforts against ISIL in Syria by taking direct military action itself, provided such activity meets the ongoing requirements of necessity and proportionality. ISIL’s threat to the UK and its attack on our Allies and partners The threat from ISIL continues to evolve...

Jordan Response... Durand actually involved self-defense measures against a non-state actor maruading mob. See 19 J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 237, 245-46 (2010), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1701992 . Constitutionally, the President has the authority to faithfully execute international law on behalf of the United States with respect to such measures of self-defense and, as Justice Nelson remarked, "protection" (although it is interesting that Nelson dissented later in The Prize Cases). See also Constitutionality of U.S. Participation in the United Nations-Authorized War in Libya, 26 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 43 (2012), available...

by the ICC would challenge the legality of the self-referral in Ukraine’s domestic courts, litigation that could make it very difficult for ICC proceedings to go forward. Relatedly, I think it’s important to remind ourselves that Ukraine’s self-referral does not mean the OTP will open a formal investigation into the situation. Diane Amann writes today that the self-referral shows “Europe is on [the] ICC docket.” That’s true — but only in the formal sense. As Mark Kersten noted in February, Europe has been on the ICC docket for a long...

require zealous defense and advocacy, but specifically within the context of the legal adversary process. I can find no mandate to advocate on behalf of a client in the press, public relations, or politics. This is a particular problem when the client is a enemy in war who is dedicated to killing Americans. In court, he is entitled to the same zealous defense given any other client. Legally, the US is not required to give him anything more than a courtroom defense. In a civilian criminal trial, a lawyer may...

fair-trial rights that are essentially similar to the ICCPR’s, including the right “[t]o have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defense and to communicate freely with counsel of his own choosing and to meet with him privately.” As Human Rights Watch has thoroughly documented, however, the IST has repeatedly undermined the rights of Saddam, his co-defendants, and the other “High Value Detainees” to a fair trial and an effective defense. First, between June, 2004, and December, 2004, when the IST became operational, U.S. investigators used Iraqi government...

impress a ‘non-first-use’ approach, the painful emphasis on the establishment of dominance hints at the non-self-defense exclusive nature of the USSF’s establishment. Section 14.10.3 of the US Law of War Manual further reaffirms that Article IV of the OST merely prohibits the placement of WMDs in full orbit, and not the placement of other space-based weapon systems. To this effect, it expressly cites anti-satellite laser weapons and other conventional weapons, which would include suborbital defensive systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, as not being subject to...