Search: self-defense

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

Amos Guiora has an essay up on Jurist concerning the Israeli military operations in Gaza. He writes: The IDF launched Cast Lead after two significant developments: Hamas had fired 6,000 missiles from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel during the past three years after Israel had unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip and Hamas had unilaterally violated an Egyptian negotiated cease-fire. This is classic self-defense; to that extent, Operation Cast Lead is not different. From a legal perspective, however, there are three critical differences between Cast Lead and previous IDF...

...will be most contested? And why would it be a mistake to frame this case solely through the lens of countering terrorism?   Key Claims by the Defense Against Charges of Financing Terrorism in this Case The French Criminal code provides in article 421-2-2 “The act of financing a terrorist enterprise also constitutes an act of terrorism when it involves the provision, collection, or management of funds, assets, or any kind of property, or the offering of advice for such purposes, with the intention that these funds, assets, or property be...

...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...

...as sovereign nations, call upon the Canadian and United States governments to respect our decision to reject tar sands projects that impact our sacred sites and homelands; to call upon the Canadian and United States governments to immediately halt and deny approval for pending tar sands projects because they threaten the soil, water, air, sacred sites, and our ways of life; and, confirm that any such approval would violate our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities. Article VII then goes on to establish a mutual defense commitment of sorts, wherein the...

defense is qualified by Article 8.8, a new provision stating that ‘Human rights due diligence shall not automatically absolve’ a business from liability.  Rather, a court (or competent authority) will decide on liability ‘after an examination of compliance with applicable human rights due diligence standards.’  What does this mean? That a business whose HRDD complies with applicable standards has an automatic defense?  Or not?  And what are those applicable HRDD standards? Article 8.8 is indicating that the mere fact of conducting HRDD cannot be used as a safe harbour for...