Search: self-defense
21 Apr Jus ad Bellum Implications of Japan’s New National Security Laws
...it?? not at all !! but is it actually a self defense right , has got nothing to do with classic armed attack on it , and yet , self defense , for basic survival !! who would deny it ?? only a lunatic person !! It doesn't of course exclude political solutions, yet, self defense, in the plain meaning of it , so : Occupation of the west bank , is a classic use of force , for self defense purposes , proven , while deviating from classical legal...15 Jan Armed Conflict With Al Qaida?
...and our military headquarters, killing more than 3,000 people. Al Qaida also had a military command structure and world-wide affiliates. In our view, the United States was justified in responding in self-defense, just as we would have been if a nation had committed these acts against us. Indeed, the UN Security Council recognized our right of self-defense in resolution 1368 on September 12. And if the United States did not have the right to use force against al Qaida and the Taliban, we would have had no acceptable way to...23 Sep Guest Post: Pesky Questions of International Law: What’s the basis for air strikes in Syria?
UN article 51. Under the Const., the President has authority to use military force in self and collective self-defense, in accordance with UN arts. 42 and 48, or in accordance with UN art. 52 ("regional action") under Article II, Section 3 of the Const. -- http://ssrn.com/abstract=2061835 Yes, a threat or "imminent threat" (which is not yet a threat) will not trigger UN 51 for U.S. self-defense -- preemptive self-defense as such would be unlawful and unconstitutional. Jennifer Trahan I ultimately do agree with Jordan that a theory of collective self-defense...12 Oct A Quick Bleg on the US and Self-Defence
at war with al Qaeda as such -- http://ssrn.com/abstract=2165278 and there is no displacement of human rights law or the law of war (when the law of war otherwise applies) merely because responsive force is in self or collective self-defense. Jordan the first article above demonstrates why "imminent threat" is unacceptable as a self-defense test. Andrew: and footnote 17 at page 421 therein addresses Dinstein's claim and the problem under the laws of war re: such a targeting (Osirak). And Marty re: your hypo, if bin Laden was a DPH,...10 Jul Guest Post: Self-Defence – Weapons, Lawful Commands, Duty to Retreat and Summary
reaction would have been permissible. The original post seems to suggest that the soldier, having acted in personal self defense, would be able to argue that he was entitled to ignore the ROE. (If I have misunderstood, I apologize, and please ignore the rest of this comment.) But that position seems to be inconsistent with the basic concept of self-defense as a tailored exception to the laws against killing. The right of self defense exists only to the extent the applicable law gives that right. It is not a carte...28 Sep That “Broad Consensus” for Unwilling/Unable Just Got Less Broad
the effort, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova pondered what kind of conception of ‘self-defense’ would drive one country to carry out an operation to bomb another without that country’s explicit permission. Earlier, Prime Minister Manuel Valls was cited by French media as saying that Paris’s bombing campaign constitutes self-defense. “We are acting in self-defense,” Valls noted, according to Reuters. In a post on her Facebook page, Zakharova pondered that “it would be nice to know more about this concept of self-defense, in the form of air strikes [on the...25 Sep A “Broad Consensus” — of Between Two and Four States
that are not attributable to a state" Kevin points to "Art. 2(4) itself." Well, Article 2(4) speaks for itself--and it includes no such exception. Marty Lederman Sorry, meant to say in Point 6, of course, that Article 2(4) does not speak to the question of the scope of permissible self-defense; that Article 51 is an acknowledged exception to the prohibition in 2(4); and that *Article 51* includes no such distinction for armed attacks by nonstate actors: it recognizes “the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack...11 Oct France Fails to Adopt “Unwilling or Unable” in Syria
of self-defense was not fixed by the Charter in its pre-1945 form. Pre-Charter self-defense was the law of self-defense that existed under customary international law at the time -- and custom can always change. So regardless of the "inherent" right states might have had to use self-defense against unattributable NSA attacks in 1837 or 1937, state practice significantly narrowed the content of that right post-Charter, pre-9/11 to specifically require attribution. That's the evolution Ruys discusses at great length in his book -- and the evolution that no use of force...28 May A Question for Ken
...talking about "self defense" in the domestic criminal justice sense, but even in military law there are two levels of self defense. Strategic jus ad bellum self defense justifies the use of military force in a conflict that does not rise to the level of an armed conflict, like the exchange of fire across a DMZ. Tactical jus in bello self defense justifies the use of military force by a warship when an unidentified small boat is approaching and fails to stop when challenged. In force protection situations, one should...31 Jan The CIA Violated the Terrorist Bombing Convention
cumbersome, but all of the account is included in the Google preview. The "unlawfully" discussion begins on p. 258. I will be curious to know what you think! Jordan I addressed "lawful" acts of self-defense, not "any" act of self-defense. Article 19(1) (addressing rights, etc. under the U.N. charter) is clearly relevant with respect to proper interpretation of the word "unlawful," even if the drafting history was silent about the right to engage in lawful measures of self-defense under the U.N. Charter and customary international law reflected therein. Further, the...