Search: self-defense

...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...

...this stage. Then, the ICJ opined that it has treated the clean hands doctrine as a defense of merits with “utmost caution”. More importantly, the ICJ then analyzed the conditions where the clean hands doctrine could be applicable, as argued by the US in their counter-memorial. It is critical that we pause here first. This is the first time that the ICJ has delved into a substantial analysis of the clean hands doctrine as a defense on merits, and has taken into account the various considerations that attract its application....

...statutory provisions. Even if preliminary examination were to constitute a “matter under consideration,” the Defense maintained, it would have no bearing on the question of whether the Court could open an investigation post-withdrawal under article 12, as the Defense contested an applicable linkage between 12 and 127. Finally, the Defense contested the finding that the object and purpose of the Statute permitted the authorization of an investigation post-withdrawal, arguing that the object and purpose of the Statute is served by the one-year period between notification of withdrawal and its effect...

[Maya Nirula is a dual-qualified international human rights lawyer with multi-jurisdictional experience consulting and litigating on issues of business and human rights] Introduction  This is the first of a two-part series, the Role of Business in War. Part I: The Old Offense will evaluate the interaction between International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and International Criminal law (ICL) in governing gross human rights abuses and corporate complicity. Part II: A Different Defense will examine a potential new defense to such complicity through the integration of IHL and ICL...

...limits. [This is a tangent; feel free to ignore it.] Peter Orlowicz Don't affirmative defenses like self-defense or duress act to defeat criminal liability even when the mens rea for a given offense is present? Perhaps we don't want to extend those affirmative defenses for torture in particular, but to say "it is a basic principle of criminal law that the motive behind a crime is irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt" seems to oversimplify. B. Don Taylor III "...to say “it is a basic principle of criminal law that the...

...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...

...immediate and immense subcontracting problems for any defense contractors relying on Claude, including Amazon Web Services, Palantir and Anduril, and could potentially, de facto, force the company out of the defense tech ecosystem. This would have repercussions not only in the US context, but also internationally as, for example, a number of European states, such as the UK, have large-scale contracts with these companies. Defense officials, including Secretary Pete Hegseth, have framed Anthropic’s safety conditions as operationally unrealistic. Military operations, they argue, unfold in grey zones. Therefore, DoD claims it...

...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...

...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...

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,...

...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...

...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...