Search: self-defense

...referral, can be grouped in three categories: 1) State Party self-referral; 2) single State Party referral and 3) group/collective State Party referral. The last two of them can be termed as “third State Party referrals”. Self-referral takes place when a State Party itself refers alleged crimes committed on its territory or by its nationals to the Prosecutor. Self-referrals has emerged as the major way to seize the Court. Interestingly, drafters of the Rome Statute shared an assumption that self-referrals would be an exception (for an opposite view, see Robinson, 2011)....

...deployments, similar emotions had been controlled by him. The appellant’s decision to kill was probably impulsive and the adjustment disorder had led to an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control. In our judgement the adjustment disorder from which he was suffering at the time also impaired his ability to exercise self-control. Third, and finally, CMAC concluded (para. 114) that because Blackman could not form a rational judgment at the time of the killing as a result of his adjustment disorder, he was entitled to...

...Let me start with the most obvious. Dr. Verdebout herself admits that “this material remains, all in all, rather ‘western’”, but addresses this possible line of critique by noting that such Eurocentrism “is not really problematic in the context of this research, as the aim is to examine a narrative that has itself been built on ‘eurocentric’ premises”. I would like to offer some pushback on this conclusion. The idea that “international law”, as a system, particularly in the 19th century, was a Eurocentric creation that irradiated from a metropolitan,...

decision implies an automatic assignment to the judiciary of the authority to ensure that the commitment is honored. • Although the opinion is limited in the sense that it does not offer a general rule for inferring self-executing from treaties, its dicta states strong views (it might be too strong to say it disposes of) concerning several controversies that the academic community has taken seriously. (a) The Court understands self-execution to refer to all forms of domestic enforcement, not just to the existence of a private right of action. Its...

...to mercenaries and is applicable in international armed conflicts (IAC), non-international ones (NIAC) – and beyond. For instance, should the self-defense services demanded by Plazir-15 include fighting in an armed conflict and should Mandalorians not be incorporated in the armed forces of the planet, Plazir-15 and its officials would be in violation of international law. Mandalorians would also be at risk of being prosecuted domestically, as the Convention equally criminalizes the participation of individuals to armed conflicts as mercenaries.  The main Mandalorian’s mission in the series, interesting for the potential...

I stand behind my description of Yoo, but Julian’s thoughtful post deserves a less facile response. So let’s consider Yoo’s claim about Clinton’s violation of the War Powers Act. Here is Julian’s explanation of why Yoo’s attack on Clinton is not inconsistent with his defense of Bush: His complaint about Clinton’s violation of the War Powers Act is that Clinton didn’t bother to claim that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional (in fact, according to Yoo, Clinton actually accepted the legality of the War Powers Act). Instead, Clinton simply violated...

Over at National Security Advisors, our colleague Dave Glazier has a superb post on whether the Gitmo defense attorneys are responsible for the ills of the military commissions, as the Wall Street Journal‘s far-right editorial page seems to believe. Here’s the intro: The Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial today blasting the military and civilian defense attorneys it portrays as unreasonably obstructing the capital military commission prosecutions of high value terrorists, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). It is not surprising that a paper noted for its...

...argues here). Having said all that, a favorable decision for the petitioners in Bond could still have a practical impact by reviving that almost extinct constitutional creature: the self-executing treaty. The President and Senate, at least in the past few decades, have very rarely approved self-executing treaties outside of a few subject matter areas (like taxes, extradition, and investment). Big important treaties, such as human rights treaties, have generally been approved on the condition they are non-self-executing. (Go ahead, name the most important self-executing treaty of the past thirty years....

...was suggested that it was important to engage with the Israeli academics at that university, who were described as critical of the occupation. But this criticism, such as it has been, has not, to my knowledge — and I am happy to be corrected — extended to the fundamental matter of the occupation being in and of itself illegal in use of force and self-determination terms, requiring an immediate, not wait-for-a-peace-deal, termination on this particular basis. Such an approach would, of course, presuppose that Hebrew University, which describes itself as...

...the treaty power’s scope and devised its own mechanisms for accommodating federalism in U.S. treaties. To date, however, scholars have largely ignored the Executive’s efforts to self-judge when and how federalism limits U.S. treaty-making–efforts that I label “Executive Federalism.” But Executive Federalism has significant domestic and international ramifications. First, it requires rethinking federalism’s nature by demonstrating that federalism need not function solely as a judicial or legislative safeguard for states’ rights. Second, while it serves as a vehicle for Executive self-restraint, Executive Federalism still has structural implications, weakening the authority...

...other opportunities to undertake effective action in self-defense that may be expected to cause less serious collateral injury, loss or damage.” (p. 9) (2) State A need not obtain the consent of State B to use force on the territory of State B if State A is using force against a non-state armed group that poses an actual or imminent threat of armed attack against State A if State B is “unwilling or unable to confront effectively” the non-state actor in its territory. A state is most clearly “unable,” according...

...self-defense apart from armed conflict, as a basis for targeting (and agreeing here with Serwer, including targeting Americans), is simultaneously a break with Bush administration policy (even while, in one sense, broadening it), and a re-affirmation of a legal policy going back to the Reagan-Bush years. The self-defense assertion is important, and intellectually engaging, precisely because it is not the ground on which the Bush administration claimed its ability to target people. For the Bush administration, it was always armed conflict, global and plenary; for the Obama administration, it allows...