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...

...the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to...

JordanPaust Response... If the law of war paradigm does not apply, one is not locked into a law enforcement paradigm because there might also be a right of self-defense under UN art. 51 == the self-defense paradigm. Since the U.S. cannot be in an armed conflict with al Qaeda as such, this is an important point. My article on self-defense targetings made these points. Further, there have been influences of jus ad and jus in vis a vis each other and since similar general principles pertain (reasonable necessity, distinction, proportionality),...

the defense with redactions. 3 of the 173 documents cannot be disclosed to the defense, directly or indirectly. And here is the breakdown of the NGO documents: None of the 55 documents can be disclosed to the defense in unredacted form. 53 of the 55 documents can be disclosed to the defense in redacted or summarized form. 2 of the 55 documents cannot be disclosed to the defense in any form. As this point, we have no way to know whether letting the Trial Chamber review all of the documents...

their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Now do you think the term “suitable to their conditions” limited the number of people who had access to arms for self-defense? MR. GURA: It was in England, but that was criticized by the framers. St. George Tucker’s edition of Blackstone – JUSTICE STEVENS: So you think that the Second Amendment is a departure from the provision in the Declaration of Rights in England? MR. GURA: It’s quite clearly an expansion upon it. JUSTICE STEVENS: So that’s not really...

...Article II authority to act in defense of U.S. facilities and troops overseas without first waiting for congressional authorization, a necessary extension of the President’s power (on which there is near uniform agreement) to “repel sudden attacks.” As relevant here, this authority should be understood to extend to the defense of certain organized third parties (whether a state like Britain or our allied non-state Syrian Democratic Forces) operating (as Bobby Chesney puts it) “in close coordination with the U.S. military in a combat setting.” In such a situation, I take...

...think anything that has occurred in Ukraine rises to the point of Russia have a claim to Article 51 self-defense, but at this point, this isn’t about adjudicating claims, the Russian strategy is about misdirection and wrapping what it does do in a mantle of (seeming) legality. Well, not so much a mantle as a fig leaf. Consequently, given the centrality of the norm of non-intervention, the self-defense argument sounds weak to my ears. But consider how the situation in Ukraine is being reported by the Russian-government funded news source,...

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...

...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...

...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)....

...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...

...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...