Search: self-defense
14 Jul Amos Guiora on the Law of Targetted Killings
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....26 Apr So Was Congress Thinking of Authorizing Force in Syria?
...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...
05 Oct Trump vs. International Law: The Challenge of Articulating a Legal Framework for Humanitarian Intervention
...create space for anticipatory self-defense even though its plain language—which permits the use of defensive force only “if” an armed attack occurs—clearly states otherwise) this argument is by itself not likely to be a sufficiently sturdy foundation. As such, the best odds for the development of a legal theory to support the sort of test that Koh proposes may lie in a multi-step process, which begins with revisiting the history and text of the UN Charter itself, developing a credible interpretation based on the text and history of Article 2(4)...
08 Oct Rethinking International Law After Gaza Symposium: Massacring Civilians – Genocide as International Legal Conundrum
...other international legal doctrines: state self-defense and prohibition of terrorism. Neocolonial states consistently allege to be acting in self-defense or in the interest of global security when they massacre civilians in the global South. (The U.S. “war on terror” exemplifies this tactic.) These neocolonial states also allege that mass civilian deaths are “mistakes” or “collateral damage.” The state’s claim of self-defense is so sacred in the contemporary international legal system that the burden of proof falls on victims of massacres to prove civilian targeting. Neocolonial states consistently murder disproportionately more...06 Apr The Strike in Syria – Is the International Law Calculation Different Now Than in 2013?
but I think unpersuasive. The United States today has its own troops on the ground in Syria – troops that were not present in 2013, troops stationed (at least some of them) as close as 50 miles away from the site of the chemical weapons attack. In the abstract, one might imagine this could lead the United States to offer some sort of self-defense justification (in defense of our own nationals). But given our troops are in Syria (to fight ISIS) without Syrian consent, and given Syria’s apparent determination since...
15 Apr Can the United Nations General Assembly Authorize a No-fly-Zone over Ukraine?
...with Resolution 1973. There is however one caveat to this conclusion. The Ukrainian government has already signaled that it would invite other states to implement a no-fly-zone over its territory. As Ukraine is currently exercising its right to self-defense under Art. 51 UNCh against Russia’s aggression, states can furnish military assistance to Ukraine as a measure of collective self-defense. The GA could welcome such action in accordance with the Ukrainian government’s invitation. This would fall short of an authorization and have no legal effect. However, it could bestow legitimacy to...08 Mar David John Frank Responds to James Hathaway & Jason Pobjoy
is not to disregard the obvious differences between LGBT asylum claims and self-repression. Asylum rights are enabling. Self-repression is disabling. Asylum rights are public matters. Self-repression is a private matter. And so on. All of this is important to spell out because it describes the world as we know it and the world as we believe it should be. In articulating the assumptions that allow us to justify LGBT asylum claims in terms of the traumatic consequences of self-repression, we specify the conditions under which such a justification makes sense...
11 Oct Rethinking International Law After Gaza Symposium: Unlawful Occupation as Ongoing Aggression – Rethinking Legal Responses in the Context of Palestine
...Self-Determination: The occupation must deny or obstruct the right to self-determination of the people under occupation. Hostile and Unprovoked Nature: The scale and severity of the ongoing presence in the occupied territory are both hostile and unprovoked, marked by, for instance, claims of a permanent foreign occupation, widespread loss of life, extensive destruction of property, or the displacement of vast numbers of refugees. These conditions are clearly fulfilled in the case of Israel’s occupation of Palestine, since its inception and perhaps now more than ever. The ICJ’s advisory opinion recognised...25 Mar Medellin v. Texas: “Modest and Fairly Careful”
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...12 Mar Bradley Book Symposium: Kristina Daugirdas on Delegations to International Institutions
...them unless and until Congress adopts implementing legislation. This is desirable, he writes, because it ensures that international decisions and orders are subject to “the filter of the U.S. democratic process.” (p. 134) Professor Bradley reports that some commentators—himself included—have therefore endorsed a presumption that the orders and decisions of international institutions are not self-executing. When the decisions and orders of international institutions are not self-executing, Congress’s participation becomes essential if the United States is to comply with its international obligations. But can we count on Congress to fulfill this...