Search: self-defense

described by Jordan Paust. This is significant because it represents the use of Article 51 self-defense against non-state actors. While the ICJ’s opinions in the Palestinian Wall case and Congo v. Uganda both called into question whether Article 51 self-defense can support the use of force against non-state actors, the separate opinions of Judges Simma and Kooijmans recognized that in a post-9/11 world containing failed states, state practice strongly supports the view that an expansive reading of Article 51 to include non-state actors is appropriate. Sunday’s operation was another example...

...gained now would be lost in legal battles and hurdles along the way. The real problem is that the ICTY has put itself in a corner with the infamous Seselj decisions on self-representation, by saying that it cannot impose counsel unless a clear warning is given to the accused, and the accused persists in obstructing the proceedings. The better way would have been to always impose counsel (just like courts would do in Serbia and Bosnia, btw, which would have jurisdiction if the ICTY was not there) but at the...

...a powerful argument on this front (at least to me): If a self-executing treaty can exceed Congress’ Article I powers, than why not a statute implementing that same treaty? What is the structural logic of this result? For this reason, I associate myself with Professor Curtis Bradley’s view that it makes sense to read a federalism limitation on the self-executing effects of a treaty as well. That question was the subject of Missouri’s main holding, and that holding is also troubling and suspect. I understand that the arguments for limiting...

...the aid from the flotilla? If Hamas does not see the humanitarian crisis as great enough to stop its violence, how is Israel supposed to see it as great enough to risk more of it? I'm not a spokesperson for Israel, but at the end of the day if Israel is finding itself increasingly isolated for exercising its rights to self-defense, better to be isolated than obliterated as per the Hamas Charter. Aaron Levitt I would like to see a serious reply to Zak's question, which addresses an issue that...

...Kosovo. Chris Borgen Corina: Thank you for your comments. I will analyze the legal rationale in a post later this week. Amin Ghanbari Now it has been just expectable to see any state of a federal system self determine it self in the light of the Post-Cold war era evolutions of international law and specially the general practice of other states concerning the issue of the right of self determination; but there is a question left unseen about people who are non members of a federal state, hopeful to self...

...previous law or treaty forbids. On a related note, is legislation which forecloses judicial application of preexisting and otherwise self executing treaties constitutional? A treaty is either self-executing and directly applicable or not. One may argue that the intent of the executive and of the Senate (as well the language of the treaty) have a bearing on whether the treaty is self executing but shouldnt' that be restricted to the intent at the time the treaty was negotiated and ratified. Once a treaty is deemed self-executing and directly applicable can...

...overriding African state interests through the legal regime of the UN and the Security Council overlooks the obvious reality that state self-interest and state priorities have long animated the Council [...] The view from below then is not that international law as shaped by the Council has transcended state self-interest, but that only the interests and priorities of some states are relevant." "critics of South Africa and the AU do not acknowledge the dangers of infecting the ICC with the Council’s legitimacy deficits. The reliance on the Security Council as...

I have written before about the Bush Administration’s war on attorneys who defend individuals accused of terrorism. (See here and here.) A new front has now been opened in that war, with the chief U.S. military prosecutor accusing Major Michael Mori, who is representing David Hicks — the Australian scheduled to be the first GITMO detainee tried by military commission — of violating the Orwellian article 88 of the UCMJ, which prohibits the use of “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary...

...said to have replied with a defense of the legislation, calling foreign funding of nonprofits interference in Israel’s internal affairs. A senior Israeli official acknowledged that if the bills pass in their current form, they would cause a severe crisis with the EU. Standley has contacted all of the embassies in Israel that represent EU countries, urging them to register their own concerns regarding the legislation. EU ambassadors here are to meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue. The office of the EU in Israel has also approached the embassies...

I know you have all missed my blogging about international trade law. So now that I’m back (at least for a while), let me highlight a neat legal issue raised by China in its appeal of a recent WTO decision against its restrictions on foreign media. According to this WSJ report, China has raised the “public morals” defense contained in Article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services to challenge a WTO panel report on Chinese restrictions on the distribution of foreign media within China. The public morals...

...case was met during my few days at the Austrian Human Rights Film Festival with either stony silence or (more commonly) open hostility. It hasn’t been a pleasant response — so why do I do it? There are many answers. The first is the one that defense attorneys always use, which is no less true for that fact: every defendant, even one accused of committing horrific international crimes, needs a good defense. Indeed, the more horrific the accusations, the greater that need. Everyone involved in the criminal justice system knows...

...was quite different from what is now being reported in the press. I would argue that there were omissions of consequence.” At his briefing in the White House Situation Room, Daschle was forbidden to take notes, bring staff or speak with anyone about what he had been told. “You’re so disadvantaged,” Daschle says. “They know so much more than you do. You don’t even know what questions to ask.” Moreover, the secrecy defense presumes that the Bush administration kept the NSA program secret because it believed that was the only...