Search: self-defense

...State may invoke self-defence only when it has been the victim of an “armed attack”. If that condition is satisfied, any defensive use of force is subject to the requirements of necessity and proportionality (ICJ Nicaragua, para. 194). A State that acts in self-defence without respecting these conditions and requirements violates the prohibition of the use of force under article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law. In most serious cases, such use of force may qualify as an act of aggression. Turkey identified the following circumstances as...

...those displaced.  Speakers emphasised the four main findings of the AO and their implications. First, the ICJ observes that Israel violates the ius cogens and erga omnes obligation to respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people as well as the obligation arising from the prohibition of the use of force to acquire territory. The ICJ underscores the obligation of all states to cooperate in ending Israel’s illegal occupation and ensuring the full realisation of Palestinian self-determination, including the territorial integrity of the OPT. The Court gives the task...

...even though the treaty was self-executing, and thus part of the supreme Law of the land, its provisions failed to overcome a standing presumption against private rights of action: To determine whether a treaty creates a cause of action, we look to its text. S ee United States v. Alvarez-Machain , 504 U.S. 655, 663 (1992) (“In construing a treaty, as in construing a statute, we first look to its terms to determine its meaning.”). The Treaty of Amity, like other treaties of its kind, is self-executing. See Medellín v....

...of what international law means to a politician in government such as Jack Straw. We learn that there is a high degree of self-awareness as to the power – and latitude – afforded to state actors in international legal doctrine. This self-awareness appears to translate as authority to speak to what international law actually is, or could be as interpreted by such a state actor. In a sense, this gives a behind-the-scenes affirmation of what scholars and students of international law already superficially recognize as ‘custom’ formation. Here, we learn...

...Supremacy Clause, when there is no such right under the pertinent statute itself, would effect a complete end-run around this Court’s implied right of action and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 jurisprudence. We have emphasized that “where the text and structure of a statute provide no indication that Congress intends to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit, whether under § 1983 or under an implied right of action.” This body of law would serve no purpose if a plaintiff could overcome the absence of a...

...sovereign state through utilizing either of the two exceptions to prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: (1) UNSC authorization; and/or (2) use of force for the purpose of self-defence (under Article 51). Self-Defence: To Be Preventive or Pre-emptive? That Is the Question! Iraq’s ignorance in acting in conformity to the demands and purposes of Resolution 660 which condemned Iraq’s unlawful invasion to Kuwait, brought forth Resolution 678. The latter Resolution gave power to all member states to “use all necessary means to uphold...

...strikes with the United Nations (UN) Charter and the general prohibition on the use of force under international law. This post will focus on this last matter. Before delving into some of the key legal issues, it should be noted that the US strikes contrast with the position previously adopted by the US, whereby it directed its military force towards the fight against the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) under its umbrella of ‘the war on terror’ on the basis of self-defence, as opposed to directing...

...foundation of distance – and yet at the same time a constant invocation of virtuous life-saving possibilities. As  David Kennedy, Janet Halley, and others have suggested, this contradiction produces a systematic failure to assess the distributional consequences of humanitarian work: the virtue of the work is meant to override the violence it produces. Yet the self-conscious integration of consequences, Simpson suggests, can also lead to cynical self-presentation. His own experience with this, he says, was a paper he gave in 2002 focusing on the “misuse” of international law in the...

...Covenant or UN Charter. They are meaningful, but what we do with them is more meaningful. When I draw a parallel between self-preservation and self-defence, it is to warn against the effects of extensive interpretations of Article 51. If one believes that the uses and abuses of self-preservation ‘eviscerated any putative rule of non-intervention’, then the book is an invitation to reflect critically on what we are doing now.  This brings me to two questions, one by Helal and one by Ingo Venzke: Was the narrative successful in resuscitating confidence...

...actively seek to encounter, produce, and harness, their own indeterminacy (or the experience and expression of it) as a generative principle’. Such generative forms of ungovernance have been at the heart of Palestine’s predicament for decades. It was the Oslo Accords of 1993-1995 in particular that sanctioned a complex regime of (non)rule across the fragmented non-sovereign space of Palestine. Before this agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), the predominant paradigms for international lawyers had been those of belligerent occupation and self-determination. These two paradigms were further reliant on...

...Japan relinquished sovereignty, but there is no transfer mechanism. Some argue Aquisitive Prescription (e.g. Goa) but that fails here as there is considerable objection to any Chinese claim to Taiwan, which precludes Aquisitive Prescription. US defense of Taiwan would not only be legal, but justice and consistent with US values. My concern is that Obama is such a weak president that the US might just sit on the sidelines. Guy Again, if the point is "the increasing irrelevance of Article 51 of the UN Charter to decisions by major powers...

...history helped us tease out the state practice concerning the underlying law. We found there has been a consistent view that there is no general right to secession—or “external self-determination”—under international law. Attempted secessions are largely viewed as domestic affairs that need to be resolved by the state itself. As a matter of international law, a successful claim for external self-determination must at least show that: (a) the secessionists are a “people;” (b) the state from which they are attempting to secede seriously violates their human rights; and (c) there...