Search: self-defense

Anyone familiar with foreign relations law hears the common refrain that treaties almost never supersede statutes under the last-in-time rule. Until recently, it was certainly my understanding that the ancient Supreme Court case of Cook v. United States was the only significant example in which a self-executing treaty trumped an earlier conflicting statute. But my recent research on the last-in-time rule indicates that there are several examples in which that rule has been applied to give effect to a self-executing treaty that conflicts with an earlier federal statute. In particular,...

...none of us is safe. And here, in relevant part, is Wittes’ response (emphasis mine): So the real authority is limited not just by geography and governance but by the nature of the target himself. That is, the president may only target an American national when when he has concluded in good faith that this person is either covered by the AUMF or poses a sufficiently-immediate threat to the country so as to trigger its right to self-defense. In other words, Adam’s fear that “the president can have someone executed...

...common language and culture; or, a group which distinguishes itself, as such (self identification); or, a group identified as such by others, including perpetrators of the crimes (identification by others)”. The Mountain Men pride themselves to be the stewards of Western ‘civilisation’ and high culture. This self-image of sophistication and class is key to their perceived distinction from the Grounders. In addition, the Mountain Men could qualify as a racial group, which the ICTR in Akayesu (¶514) has considered to be conventionally defined “based on the hereditary physical traits often...

the threat through its military deployments, but it has not clearly indicated that it will use force unless its demands are met by NATO states. Indeed, it has denied that it intends to use force. Are there any possible justifications for the threat or use of force should it come to that in this instance? First, there is the possible justification of self-defence. Russia claims to be acting in the face of an ever more threatening posture of NATO forces surrounding it.  However, self-defence is only permissible in response to...

the belief that the “self-executing” language had been sneakily inserted by members of his party in order to make the law ineffective upon passage. “Wait, what?” the 75 year old lawmaker, who has served in the Senate for 16 years, exclaimed. “I literally thought ‘self-executing’ mean that the law would be dead on arrival. Well, this is embarrassing,” he admitted to the audience, which consisted primarily of law students and a reasonable number of Cambridge hobos, many of whom were the most amused at Inhofe’s error. “I mean, this is...

...to the nation-state that signed its royal charter. Consider that England even ceded Bombay to the EIC. Relevant for the discussion we had, the EIC also raised an in-house army that waged (many) wars. Vitoria announced war makes states. Swati Srivastava retorts: war also awakens sovereigns. Despite not possessing a monopoly over political power—as Westphalia insists—the EIC used war to expand its land holdings. Over time, it experienced a form of sovereign awakening, spurred by its tax and war activities in Bengal. Seeing itself as self-sustaining, it declared it possessed...

rights to "individual, or collective self-defense," under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter! If Hamas continues to launch its rockets from population centers, Israel must take such measures as are feasible to minimize civilian casualties, but is not otherwise required to refrain from responding to threats to its national security. The unvarnished reality is that this conflict will continue until either Israel devastates Gaza in this perpetual war, or the Hamas barbarians succeed on the battlefield, which seems even far less likely to occur! Kevin Jon Heller Mike 71, With...

...for the general point, I'm sure defense counsel would be paid, if Karadzic actually had defense counsel. Since he doesn't, I don't see why people like prof. Heller should be paid as if they were defense counsel. Kevin Jon Heller Martin, As I have pointed out numerous times on this blog, I am not receiving a penny for my services. Justinian The decision is - obviously - aimed at weakening the right to self-representation. And it certainly does reach that goal. However, the right to self-represantation does not require the...

I just wanted to note that I have posted to SSRN The Language of Law and the Practice of Politics: Great Powers and the Rhetoric of Self-Determination in the Cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia, which is part of the special issue of the Chicago Journal of International Law about great power politics to which Ken has referred a couple of times. Here’s the abstract: This Article, written for a special issue of the Chicago Journal of International Law concerning great power politics, seeks to elucidate whether and how international...

lack of analysis of congressional-executive agreements. One of his most salient points is that our book argues for an international agreement-making process that is way too onerous to be practical or to fit within the Framer’s original understanding of the U.S. Constitution. I have some responses: 1) It’s not really that hard since many treaties today are non-self-executing; 2) the Framers envisioned at least some non-self-executing treaties could be made. In any event, it is not a long podcast and Marty’s thoughts on most questions is definitely worth listening to....

Jordan Serious problems exist with the law of war rationale, because under international law the U.S. simply cannot be at war or in an armed conflict with al Qaeda. The alternative expressed previously by the Executive is the law of self-defense, the self-defense paradigm, which permits targetings of those who are DPAA as well as their capture. Another problem is that a U.S. warship is the equivalent of U.S. territory under international law and the Constitution. Boumediene and the many cases cited therein, plus Toscanino and Tiede, the recognitions in...

Kevin Jon Heller Not terribly surprisingly, I agree with the post. But I find the statement "Engaging in war is not necessarily unlawful, but starting a war is" insufficiently precise. Starting an aggressive war is unlawful, but not all actions that start a war are aggressive -- as in the case of self-defence. So it is possible under the jus ad bellum to lawfully start a war. Gabor Rona Point taken Kevin. We meant what you said. But I'm interested in how you see use of force in self-defense as...