In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

01 Apr

...independence under the “sacred trust of civilisation” and its right to self-determination under the UN Charter”. However, Palestinian self-determination cannot negate Israel’s territorial claims or the principle of territorial integrity; at most they imply the existence of competing claims which must be addressed in a final resolution. Of course, the existence of self-determination rights does not dictate the precise territorial scope in which they can be exercised [nor does it mandate a separate state; see Reference re Secession of Quebec]. A conflicting Palestinian right would not necessarily detract from Israeli...
01.04.24 | |

17 Feb

...in international affairs might prefer such a constitutional design. However, Professor Stewart is certainly not in that camp, nor were the Founders. Third, one modern permutation of self-execution doctrine—the “no judicial enforcement” doctrine—allows state governments to impose sanctions on a criminal defendant in violation of supreme federal (treaty) law, without addressing the merits of defendant’s treaty-based defense. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause guarantees every state criminal defendant an opportunity to be heard on the merits of a federal defense to state criminal charges. Therefore, as I contend in Chapter...
17.02.17 | |

30 Aug

...avoid the questions of territorial sovereignty. Self-determination does not answer the question of the geographical unit in which it is exercised. Armenians, for example, do not principally have a preexisting sovereignty claim to Nagorno-Karabakh. Rather, they see Armenian control as an exercise of the self-determination of the Karabakh population. Similarly, Russia justifies its occupation not on prior title but on the self-determination of the Crimean population. International law rejects this argument, and regards Armenian control as an occupation, because the standard lines in which self-determination is exercised is the preexisting...
30.08.17 | |

27 Dec

...Finally, I suggest one recent law review article that considers one of the most important areas of technological innovation: self-replicating technology. But my St. John’s colleague Jeremy Sheff looks at a self-replicating technology that is already here and ubiquitous: the seed. Here’s the abstract: Self-replicating technologies pose a challenge to the legal regimes we ordinarily rely on to promote a balance between innovation and competition. This article examines recent efforts by the federal courts to deal with the leading edge of this policy challenge in cases involving the quintessential self-replicating...
27.12.12 | |

14 Mar

...sovereign immunity. The symposium contributors have addressed a number of specific propositions in the book. Here are some brief comments on each of their posts: 1. David Moore contends that the Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas need not be read as rejecting all multi-factored approaches to self-execution. I agree and did not mean to suggest otherwise in the book. I read Medellin as rejecting only the approach of the dissent, whereby the same treaty provision might be self-executing in some cases but not in others depending on how...
14.03.13 | |

19 Sep

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...
19.09.06 | |

20 May

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...
20.05.08 | |

17 Mar

...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...
17.03.22 | |

19 Jan

...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....
19.01.13 | |

11 Apr

...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...
11.04.06 | |

15 Dec

...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...
15.12.16 | |

03 May

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...
03.05.11 | |