Search: self-defense

...itself (see Israel-PLO ‘Exchange of Letters’ & Wall AO, para. 118). Furthermore, resolutions by UN bodies and other international institutions have consistently associated the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination with the OPT demarcated by the Green Line and encompassing the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip, i.e., the territory occupied by Israel since 1967. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19 reaffirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to self- determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.”...

...the Palestinian people’s right to establish their own state and would reaffirm Palestine’s sovereignty, including its rights to territorial integrity and political independence, as protected by customary international legal norms. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, States have an inherent right to individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack. While a people under occupation also have the right to resist foreign occupation, the rules of individual and collective self-defense are more well-developed. The State of Palestine may be able to call upon other recognizing States...

...a consensual vocabulary and grammar for how states talk about international relations. In short, how we talk about terms like “self-defense” can affect legal substance of what “self-defense” is. Legal rhetoric can frame policy options. While Eric and Julian focused on the inability of international law to stop Russia from sending troops into Crimea, it is important to keep in mind that the use of force issue is embedded in a much bigger dialogue about the future of Ukraine. It is an argument over self-determination: Ukraine’s and Crimea’s. It is...

...right to self-defense is available against non-State actors, such as terrorist groups…if there is an actual or threatened ‘armed attack’ by the non-State actor.” In exercising the right of self-defense, the State may use force against a non-State actor, constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality, within the territory of another State so long as force is directed against that actor and not another State, even in certain circumstances before an armed attack has occurred if the State has “no choice of means” to protect itself short of the...

...with passwords, and simply give up, the public rating . You can't have them both !! You can't cut, and leave intact ! This is , an illegal discrimination . In many states, it is, a criminal offense, and civil tort. [Comment edited as per forum guidelines] Leave my comments , and others , as they are , you don't have any right !! Kevin Jon Heller First el roam claims that "self-defense... is a sort of jus cogens." Now he claims self-defense "has got nothing to do, neither with...

...part 1, pp. 13, 70; D.W. Greig, 'Self-Defence and the Security Council: What Does Article 51 Require?', ICLQ 40 (1991), pp. 366, 392-3; L. van den Hole, 'Anticipatory Self-Defense under International Law', American University International Law Review 19 (2003), pp. 69, 104; S.D. Murphy, 'The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense', Villanova Law Review 50 (2005), pp. 699, 735] The important point, then, is not that the guns are silent, but whether they are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Reactive self-defense therefore has a limited aspect of preventive action...

...would not be difficult to conclude "unable." Moreover, the self-defense paradigm is different than the law of war paradigm, although in the case of a migrated de facto theatre of war in parts of Pakistan the U.S. can claim (and has, e.g., Harold Koh) that both apply there. Additionally, al Qaeda had continued to attack U.S. soldiers in parts of Afghanistan. Therefore, there was a continual process of armed attacks by the non-state actor that allowed self-defense responsive action. Bin Laden was still involved with planning and approving attacks on...

...with defense counsel. Attorneys working on Mexico’s behalf were in contact with defense counsel in the summer of 2002, offering, among other things, sample motions to seek court funds for experts and other services, including a mitigation investigation. ¶ 49 Despite the voluminous evidentiary hearing, and testimony from all three defense attorneys involved in the case, the actual defense strategy with regard to mitigation remains elusive to us. Several conflicting explanations were offered: (1) that defense counsel did not know the court could be petitioned to provide additional funds for...

...the rule of law, and basic humanity be damned. Yet, this is not only a betrayal of Palestine; it is a betrayal of the promise of the international order itself, signaling a return to 19th-century gunboat diplomacy, now peppered with 21st-century gangster politics. Palestinian life, self-determination, and even their very survival are swapped in exchange of political favours, construction projects, and domestic expediency. While this plan represents a natural culmination of decades of Western policy towards Palestinians, it also presages something much worse. Trump and Netanyahu have presented the world...

invoke the security exception in good faith, with a margin of discretion. A Member State may do so because of a fear of sanction, out of a sense of norm legitimacy, or because it is in its self-interest to do so. The Article concludes with brief reflections on why nations comply with the good faith obligation of a self-judging exception. Compliance with a self-judging rule offers useful insights into larger questions of why nations obey international law. Rational choice and normative theories best explain compliance with a self-judging international norm....

...Marc Weller notes, “they accepted that there would remain differences in their interpretation of their respective legal status. However, they also agreed to what amounted to de facto recognition.” (ii) Association of Serb Majority Municipalities While the above speaks mostly about obligations that Serbia undertakes under the agreement, Article 7 obliges Kosovo to “ensure an appropriate level of self-management for the Serbian community in Kosovo”. Although these commitments were supposed to be elaborated further in the Implementation Plan, it remains unclear what constitutes “self-management” and even more so what is...

self-execution is a treaty interpretation question. Second, they have assumed that the modern doctrine of self-execution is essentially the same as the doctrine articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in his seminal opinion in Foster v. Neilson. The consensus view is wrong on both counts. Properly framed, the self-execution inquiry comprises two distinct questions. First, what does the treaty obligate the United States to do? This is a question of international law governed by treaty interpretation principles. Second, which government actors within the United States are responsible for domestic treaty implementation?...