In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

02 Oct

In a thoughtful opinion, the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim, finding that the VCCR is self-executing but does not confer an individual right. For any treaty to be susceptible to judicial enforcement it must both confer individual rights and be self-executing. There is no question that the Vienna Convention is self-executing. As such, it has the force of domestic law without the need for implementing legislation by Congress. But “the questions of whether a treaty is self-executing and whether it creates private rights and remedies are analytically distinct.” “While a...
02.10.07 | |

23 Jul

Now that I’ve had a chance to read through the ICJ’s advisory opinion, following are a few initial reactions. (I will consider the separate opinions in another post.) Marko Milanovic has done a great job parsing the main issues that were at bar, namely 1. Whether the ICJ should exercise advisory jurisdiction in this case; 2. How broadly or narrowly the question posed by the General Assembly should be interpreted; 3. The legality of the declaration of independence in light of the international law of self determination; and, 4. The...
23.07.10 | |

02 Oct

...Not only would such a use of force create an international armed conflict between the US and Russia, it would itself qualify as an armed attack under Art. 2(4), thereby permitting Russia to use force against the US in self-defense. Russia would simply be responding to an unlawful act of aggression by the US. (To be sure, the same analysis would apply to any US use of force against Syria in defense of the FSA. But it would obviously be a much bigger deal for the US to commit an...
02.10.15 | |

07 Sep

...even its nationals abroad, any one of which falls much more firmly within the scope of presidential authority. Why not? Because he knows his asserted causus belli for attacking Syria falls outside the scope of national self-defense or the defense or rescue of U.S. nationals abroad. Instead, it is a broad protection of ‘national security’ interests that ostensibly triggers inherent Article II war initiation authority. This broad assertion of unilateral executive war making authority is unsupported by either historic practice or generally accepted interpretations of Article II powers. Indeed, if...
07.09.13 | |

08 Dec

(also claimed by Japan) and the Ieodo/Suyan Rock (also claimed by South Korea). To the extent those territories are “national airspace”, China can argue that it should be allowed to draw an ADIZ around them to ensure any airplanes coming near them will not enter that airspace, etc. As Zachary Keck suggests, China is using the ADIZ to subtly build its legal claim to sovereignty over the Senkakus/Diaoyu Islands. Hence, China is probably invoking the UN Charter’s self-defense provision to justify its ADIZ and its need for all foreign aircraft...
08.12.13 | |

16 Sep

...the conflict First, our definition of the conflict. As the President has said many times, we are at war with al-Qa’ida. In an indisputable act of aggression, al-Qa’ida attacked our nation and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people. And as we were reminded just last weekend, al-Qa’ida seeks to attack us again. Our ongoing armed conflict with al-Qa’ida stems from our right—recognized under international law—to self defense. An area in which there is some disagreement is the geographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to...
16.09.11 | |

15 Feb

...this discussion is, after all, about application of a potential defense. I assume the thrust of the argument is that this is a potential but ultimately ineffective theory of defense for a charge directed towards the CIA personnel who executed these orders. But in the end, isn't that why the judgment on what was "reasonable" in application of the defense is a question of fact for the finder of fact? What I can agree on is that it would be a tough defense to prevail upon, even if the interrogation...
15.02.08 | |

04 Jun

...(as US in Afghanistan after 2002 against the Taliban and AlQaeda and Iraq) while an NIAC would be like Yemen with consent against the AQ types or Afghanistan after Karzai had effective control consent against the Taliban and AQ. Pakistan is an NIAC in this setting though the lack of consent for the OBL raid (a very big deal for Pakistan) might be justified by the US as self-defense, but also might trigger Pakistan self-defense under Article 51. Subsequent events would not appear to have taken us over the threshold...
04.06.12 | |

29 Sep

entitled to act in self-defence against “bad dudes” no matter when — or even if — those “bad dudes” might launch an armed attack against the US. This isn’t even the Bush administration’s “anticipatory self-defence.” This is, for lack of a better expression, “hypothetical self-defence.” Apparently, the US government believes it is entitled to use force against a non-state actor anywhere in the world as long as it can imagine a future state of affairs in which that actor would attack it. The mind — and international law — reels....
29.09.14 | |

08 Feb

...the relevant law. Any other interpretation of the defense — most relevantly, that relying on an official statement made by the appropriate public officer or body is per se reasonable — renders the word “reasonable” completely superfluous. Reliance itself would be enough to invoke the defense. Differently put, the reasonableness requirement in entrapment by estoppel only makes sense if we leave open the possibility — however slight — that reliance on official advice can be unreasonable no matter how authoritative the public officer or body that issues it. Lederman, however,...
08.02.08 | |

02 Jun

...deny the power of Congress to legislate over Indian affairs or to curtail the scope of Indian self-government. But the Court declared that Congress had not done so in any clear fashion and thus found no congressional intent to limit Indian self-government. The Court stated that the tribes retained their right of "self-government [and] the maintenance of order and peace among their own members." Unless this power is limited by explicit legislation or surrendered by the tribe, Indian tribes retain exclusive judicial jurisdiction over reservation Indian affairs. Thus today most...
02.06.06 | |

25 Feb

...piece from me next week arguing something I’ve developed at Volokh Conspiracy and here at OJ blog: first, that the administration’s lawyers need to step up to the plate and defend targeted killing using Predators and, second, the proper legal basis on which to defend it to the full extent undertaken by the Obama administration is the international law of self-defense, rather than simply the law of armed conflict, targeting combatants. In another piece coming soon (this one a book chapter in a Hoover Institution online collection of essays from...
25.02.10 | |