In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

29 Sep

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...
29.09.09 | |

13 Oct

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...
13.10.13 | |

15 Feb

...ruling that the Texas courts did not have to respect the international tribunal’s ruling because the treaty provision (UN Charter Article 94) was “non-self-executing.” In other words, the treaty itself did not merit Supremacy Clause effect in the face of “Contrary” state law, but required an implementing federal statute to have such effect. How can this be squared with the plain language of the Supremacy Clause, which does not distinguish between treaties or statutes in ordaining what is the “supreme Law of the Land”? David Sloss’s marvelous book The Death...
15.02.17 | |

17 Mar

...domestic constitutional issue. The more interesting question involves implied immunity under the self-defense paradigm when laws of war are not applicable (as noted in my 19 J. Trans. L. & Pol'y article in 2009). If targeting is permissible under the law of self-defense (in time of peace or in time of war), it appears that general patterns of practice and opinio juris regarding such practices support an implied immunity for lawful self-defense targetings (no known prosecutions, etc.). This should also inform the domestic constitutional issue. Kevin Jon Heller John, The...
17.03.13 | |

01 Sep

...way they did was one basic and crucial rationale: "This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defense against armed attacks from outside its territory". That is it. That is the sole justification of the blockade. Israel's right to defend itself. The fact that a very notable manual was written or that tradition has it that naval blockades were only imposed in IACs does not change this truth. The truth is that we should not force states to fight terror with one hand tied behind their backs. The fact that...
01.09.11 | |

27 Mar

...ground. My current thinking on this is as follows: (1) This remedial type of self-determination must necessarily encompass a limiting temporal element. In other words, after some undefined period of time passes after the end of the HR or SD abuses, the affected people's right to external self-determination would lapse, and revert to the regular right of internal self-determination. This is because practically every multi-ethnic state in the world has undergone times of internecine violence, and they would all unravel if suddenly every group that has been persecuted throughout history...
27.03.08 | |

25 Nov

...the U.S. may be wary of binding itself to any treaty when it need not do so. This is not the only time the U.S. seems to stand alone as one of the world powers who isn't a party to a widely ratified treaty, the Vienna Convention and the Rome Statute come to mind. The whole “self-executing” business comes from the idea that an international treaty is not binding on U.S. domestic law unless either Congress has enacted statutes to implement it or it is self-executing. I’m no expert, but...
25.11.14 | |

03 Jun

...Pres. Carter unilaterally revoked the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan, and the Supreme Court declined to review this action on non-justiciability grounds. But the MDT was almost certainly a non-self-executing treaty -- there were no private rights of action under it (even for Sen. Goldwater), so Pres. Carter's revocation didn't have any effect on domestic law. Brian Has the US ratified any self-executing treaties without including a declaration/reservation to the effect that the treaty provisions are non-self-executing with respect to US domestic law? Brian ...I ask this question because my...
03.06.09 | |

29 Sep

...after all.) Perhaps it is not surprising that the ILC’s commentaries justify its rule on countermeasures by citing the comments it received from the WHO and UNESCO, both of which saw no reason to deny them such powers. One can only imagine the countermeasures that organizations like the WHO or UNESCO now see themselves as licensed to impose on the rest of us. Equally mysterious are the preconditions that the ILC appears to envision with respect IOs’ “self-defense” or their invocations of the defense of necessity. One wonders precisely what...
29.09.10 | |

06 Nov

...trade and non-proliferation as well. Finally, I found Obama’s response particularly interesting with respect to the use of force, where he lays out a traditional articulation of the U.S. right to self-defense plus a preference for multilateral action in other circumstances: I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. . . . There are some circumstances beyond self-defense in which I would be prepared to consider using force, for example to participate...
06.11.08 | |

14 Jul

Related to Ken’s earlier post, Amos Guiora has a piece up at Foreign Policy describing the legal analysis he applied when advising the Israeli Defense Forces on targeted killings of terrorists. He argues that international law permits targeted killing when certain conditions are met: The decision to use targeted killing of terrorists is based on an expansive articulation of the concept of pre-emptive self defense, intelligence information, and an analysis regarding policy effectiveness. According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, a nation state can respond to an armed attack....
14.07.09 | |

26 Apr

...other small set of problems around Syrian intervention: international law. The UN Charter says that one state can use force against another in two circumstances: (1) if the UN Security Council authorizes it, or (2) in national or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council has time to act. In Libya, we had a UN Security Council Resolution authorizing military intervention. There is no such resolution here, and at the moment, slim prospect of obtaining one given Russia’s opposition to intervention. Is this plausibly self-defense, for...
26.04.13 | |