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...

...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...

...defend yourself. It can’t be that you can use as much force in self-defence that you think will be enough to finish them off forever, and they’ll never come back for 100 years. And because I’m acting in self-defence I can use as much force as I want. But that’s controversial. Some people seem to feel that once the conflict has started, and you have shown the necessity of self-defence, you can use as much force as you like within the rules of international humanitarian law, and that means that...

...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...

...does not have to be about writing fixed end-state ideal societies or resolutions to harm.  Koskenniemi’s binary structure for international legal discourse that is stuck between wishful thinking and apologies, as well as Allott’s blueprint Eutopia, negate any potential for self-reflection as method. Reading these critical utopias, and studying their “fault-lines”, requires us to ask different questions about international law’s relationship with utopia. For example, we can ask whose utopia is it, and we can ask what harms and inequalities are being maintained by being caught in a self-imposed feedback...

...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...

...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...

...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....

...recourse to international dispute settlement mechanisms, rather than forcible self-defence. Armed Attack and Self-Defence The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice draws an important distinction between the “most grave forms of the use of force,” which qualify as armed attacks, and less grave violations that do not trigger the right of self-defence. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the Court suggested that providing training or logistical assistance to armed groups generally falls below the armed-attack threshold. If the allegations against Ethiopia concern only the construction of...

...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...

...opportunities. Beyond the direct impact of being blacklisted on Canary Mission, there is every possibility that critical teaching on Palestine scuppers the development of ties between an academic’s institution and the prospective Israeli partners. Of course being labelled a troublemaker has implications for job security as well. Avoiding self-censorship and practical next steps Beyond the personal costs noted above, most damaging of all is the self-censorship or self-policing the threat of recording provokes. Academics and students who would otherwise feel empowered to proffer critical opinions may feel less inclined to...

...of self-defence of NATO members. This is confirmed by Article 7 NAT, which declares that the Treaty does not affect the rights and obligations of NATO members under the UN Charter, which includes their right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. Accordingly, nothing in the NAT prevents Denmark and other NATO members from exercising the right of individual and collective self-defence against the US, whether they do so on an ad hoc basis or pursuant to Article 42(7) TEU. Moreover, NATO members have committed themselves in Article 1...