Search: self-defense

...one person alone but from the rule of law itself. There are only two conditions in which a war is legal under international law: when force is authorized by the United Nations Security Council or when the use of force is an act of national self-defense and survival. The U.N. Charter, based on the Nuremberg Principles, prohibits war "as an instrument of policy." And the war in Iraq is just that — a war of choice. There is a common tendency among lawyers and military commanders to sneer at international...

...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...

...traditional forces. Meanwhile, self-regulation initiatives, while mostly well-intentioned, have proven largely ineffective: lacking binding authority and meaningful repercussions, they fail to compel either companies or states to act responsibly. Fundamentally, the functionality and effectiveness of self-regulation relies solely on its incentive effect and the voluntary participation that depends on it. Most importantly: self-regulation can principally just bind those who are willing to be bound. The individual voluntary certification under a self-regulatory regime renders no effect on entities who offer services to clients who either do not care about oversight, control...

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...

...international legal problems—even the most intractable ones—must be balanced with a regard for common interests and fundamental principles. Chief among these is the right to self-determination. Unlike in bygone eras, international law no longer conceives of territories as mere pieces of property to be traded or conquered. Today, human beings are properly held to be at the center of international law. The self-determination of peoples is embraced in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter, which proclaims that a major purpose of the United Nations is to “develop friendly relations among...

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,...

...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...

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 NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) was tasked with ensuring the withdrawal of Yugoslav/Serb forces, monitoring the demilitarization of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), restoring order, and supporting the international civilian presence. Under Resolution 2803, ISF is charged with border security, civilian protection, demilitarization, and security-sector restructuring.  Finally, both resolutions aim at political transition: Kosovo toward “substantial self-government,” followed by status settlement (Resolution 1244, para. 11 and annexes 1 and 2); Gaza toward a conditional roadmap for Palestinian self-determination and statehood (Resolution 2803, para. 2 and para. 19 of annex 1)....

...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...

...peacefully. However, this architecture leaves many questions unanswered. Is anticipatory or preventive self-defence permitted under customary international law? What qualifies as an “armed attack” sufficient to trigger Article 51? Can humanitarian intervention ever be lawful absent Security Council authorisation? What status do doctrines such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) or “pro-democratic intervention” hold? In the absence of authoritative interpretive guidance or a comprehensive codification effort, States have often interpreted the Charter’s provisions in self-serving or inconsistent ways. The result is a legal landscape shaped not by consensus, but by...

...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...