Search: self-defense

...of an overlooked, but important, participant in these trials—the defense attorney. Through personal interviews, scholarly articles, and case law, I analyze the attorneys’ motivations, strategies, and tactics in representing defendants at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In particular, I ask whether defense attorneys believe that international criminal trials serve primarily adjudicative or primarily political purposes. The survey finds that defense attorneys believe that these trials are much farther from being constructed primarily to satisfy political purposes and much nearer to...

Int'l L.J. 533, 545-47 (2002). How about collective self-defense at the request of a new regime in parts of Libya and/or self-determination assistance? See id. at 547-48. Jordan Response... of course, I meant "Arab" League -- can't always type correctly Kenneth Response... See resolution 688 (1991) and following no-fly zone over Iraq to protect Kurds and Southern Iraq against Saddam Hussein, because of ensuing humanitarian situation. Perhaps no firm legal basis, but considered legitimate with some legal backing. Jordan Response... Yes, that was an implied authorization for the no fly...

...Lebanon, suggests an increased likelihood of military action, thereby heightening the overall threat. Threats in Self-Defense As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) prominently established in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, ‘if the use of force itself in a given case is illegal […] the threat to use such force will likewise be illegal’. On the other hand, ‘if it [the threat] is to be lawful, the declared readiness of a State to use force must be a use of force that is in conformity with the Charter’ (para. 47)....

...analysis, which seems fairly sensible and reasonable. It is not overreaching, since it makes clear that there are indeed treaties that are self-executing, and international court judgments that could be self-executing (just not these ones). The most important part of the Court’s opinion deals with self-execution, since its analysis there is the key the rest of the decision. And I don’t think it creates a “presumption” against self-execution, even against self-executing international court judgments (even though it perhaps ought to). But that is a subject of deep complexity, which I...

...involve temporary denial of some aspects of self-determination, “the Court intended to make clear that it is the particular features of Israel’s prolonged occupation that analogize it to a situation of alien subjugation and foreign domination which implicate the right to self-determination as a peremptory norm.” (Judge Cleveland, Separate Opinion, para. 33). While the court mentioned peremptory norms only once, it mentioned obligations erga omnes – i.e. the concern of all States – that Israel had violated numerous times. These are: “the obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian...

...Israel had a right of self-defence in 1967 that justified, legally, the introduction of the occupation then, this justification has not persisted, nor has an alternative legal justification arisen. There has been no actual or imminent armed attack justifying, as necessary and proportionate, the occupation as a means of self-defence. And the doctrine of preventative self-defence, justifying the occupation as a means of stopping a threat from emerging, has no basis in international law. Neither United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, nor the so-called Oslo Accords, provide an alternative legal...

...violated the self-determination of Palestinian people: “[t]he weak point of our position of course”, he said in 1919, “is that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination” (Quigley, p. 75). Much has been written about the purported illegality of the Mandate of Palestine, given how its Balfour commitments directly contradicted Article 22 of the Covenant, denying the mandated population self-determination and betraying the Covenant’s obligation to administer the territory for the “well-being and development” of its inhabitants. In 2007, James Crawford...

...treaty-based claims are also raised. Treaty-based claims will not succeed, however, unless the treaty is self-executing and the plaintiff has a cause of action. By endorsing a broad notion of non-self-execution and by endorsing the presumption that treaties do not create domestic rights of action even when treaties “directly benefit[] private persons,” Medellin restricted prospects for treaty-based claims under the ATS. Medellin also undermines the more common CIL-based claims. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, plaintiff Alvarez cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as evidence that CIL prohibits the...

...independence in 1991 were incompatible with the jus cogens rule of self-determination. If yes, then in her opinion, international recognition of Ukraine’s borders could not remedy that defect. While a sensible attempt to rationalize her Russian colleagues’ sentiments, I wonder how far this argument would bring them. First, it is not obvious that self-determination of the Crimea’s “nation” (if at all existent) would require Russia and Ukraine to permit them to choose their new homeland upon the breakdown of the USSR, as opposed to granting Crimea autonomy within Ukraine. Second,...

The Nuremberg defense pops up in the strangest places. As the NFL fans among our readers know, Commissioner Roger Goodell has suspended four New Orleans Saints players for their role in Bountygate — a program whereby Saints players would get financial bonuses for intentionally injuring other players on the football field, essentially the most heinous crime a football player can commit. What is most remarkable about the reaction from sportswriters to the unprecedented suspensions is how many almost reflexively invoke the Nuremberg defense in order to minimize the players’ culpability....

on the panel. But in order to rehabilitate such a juror, the defense would have to get the juror to agree to keep an open mind on the existence of whether there was an armed conflict in Yemen in 2000, a position directly contrary to the position that the defense will be advancing during the trial. At best, this puts the defense in an awkward position. At worst, it will result in a jury that is skewed in favor of the prosecution. Another problem with leaving this issue to the...

...on this would be useful.) It goes on for a while, so I’ll put it below the fold. (1) The USG does not see a legal problem with either participation by the CIA in the use of force under international or domestic law; either in an armed conflict as civilians taking direct participation or, under some circumstances not apparently at issue today, self-defense operations outside of technical armed conflict, or together in coordinated operations with the uniformed military. I think this point is not sufficiently emphasized – the USG, at...