Search: self-defense

...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...

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 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...

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...

...suspect that new paradigm types are merely seeking to do thing prohibited under the slightly less new (Geneva Conventions are not that old) paradigm to humans - see the torture and the anticipatory self-defense road (rather than saying war as national policy of the kind that Kellogg-Briand was trying to outlaw). Hope this helps. Best, Ben P.S. What if the security risk civilian asserts that they were fighting in self-defense against the combatant forces as a defense. That would be a very interesting question. Are they precluded from asserting self-defense?...

...Janina, I completely agree that advance warning does not have any effect on the legality of an attack in terms of distinction and proportionality. The proposition that Israel is absolving itself from making the proportionality "calculus" in places where it gives advanced warning is something that should be looked into. However, like other commentators, I have some issues with the second part of your analysis: (a) when looking at motivations for giving warning, there is a spectrum between "selflessness" and malice, which seems to be absent from your analysis. States...

security. If my domestic analogy is accepted as a useful tool to engage and explore the assumptions behind the discipline of international law, the self-defence analogy may lead to a requisite broadening of international self-defence to encompass preemptive self-defence in response to long term violence against a state by another actor. In my article in the MJIL, however, I use the domestic analogy to explore conceptual analogies between Western, common law legal structures and international law rather than in a prescriptive manner. This approach is enlarged on in my forthcoming...

...beyond merely recalling that the world – guided by the principle of territorial integrity as reflected in the doctrine of uti possidetis juris – still officially considers Nagorno-Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan, and that, accordingly, any realistic hope for the former to exercise its right to self-determination lies squarely within the framework of the latter. According to international legal scholars, self-determination does not automatically provided peoples with a unilateral right of secession beyond cases of decolonization. However, even the staunchest anti-secessionist will be hard-pressed to find any principled justification...

far as we punish crimes because they are immoral acts. Killing generally is immoral, most people would agree, but self-defense may act as a moral defense to the killing. It just so happens that in domestic law, we have codified many of these moral defenses into legal defenses, but that doesn't deprive them of their moral underpinnings. What those defenses require, however, is a weighing of the culpability of the crime against the moral defense offered. Here, Dubai's domestic law has preemptively and presumptively already weighed these arguments in relation...

...it actually owes duty to making sure the trial is FAIR to ALL parties." 1. Does that statement not contradict itself? If it owes a duty to making the trial fair for all parties, does it not owe duty to each individual side? 2. If you REALLY want a fair trial as defined by a defense lawyer or even under most modern criminal codes, let's be blunt here: YOU AREN'T GETTING IT ANYWAY. At this level, no defense lawyer in the world would truly expect to do much more than...

collective self-defense process (self-determination and self-determination assistance, if not also collective self-defense, would be more relevant with respect to the Free Syrian Army). Jordan p.s. I note that there is a significant difference between declaring war and launching it in terms of the allocation of constitutional power. By the way, Bush was at "war" with "terror" but Obama declared that we are at "war" with al Qaeda (even though a declaration of war is an exclusive congressional power in view of consistent U.S. cases regarding a "declaration" as such). p.s.p.s....

be detailed to the case. Only after relentless assertions of this position did the Presiding Officer finally relent, but only after subjecting the defense counsel to extensive criticism. In the case of al Bahlul, the Commission rejected his request to represent himself and ordered his detailed military defense counsel to continue to perform in that capacity (which itself raises significant ethical concerns). This ironically inverse application of the customary standards related to selection of counsel raises serious questions about just how “full and fair” this process can be. It also...