Search: self-defense

...on its own is already difficult to determine in practice, even before adding self-determination – another difficult to grasp principle of international law with its own contradictions, particularly in a context involving Russia and Ukraine –  into the mix. However, the argument in favour of reconceptualising non-intervention in line with self-determination points to the core of why it seems dissatisfactory that non-intervention does not apply to many forms of foreign election interference: even where activities in question do not digitally alter the result, the ability of voters to independently and...

...because of effective control, or if the State of sojourn offers the terrorist actor protection and is unwilling or unable to take effective action against it (cf. once again BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/16, paras. 50–51). In this case, an international armed conflict may even arise between the attacking State and the State of sojourn (ICRC Commentary, para. 511). A prerequisite for invoking self-defence, however, is that the use of force against which the attacking State is defending itself exceeds the threshold of an “armed attack” within the meaning of Article...

...effect and a very difficult one to achieve at that. This is a book that insists on its style, or the sylishness of is prose, and not only that, insists that we read this surface as the ‘thing itself’. And the style is, in turns, ironic, self-deprecating, cosmopolitan, wearing its hard earned learning lightly, self-aggrandizing. It is arch, self-conscious, always aware of the moves and counter-moves; how the game of the academic is played. And yet, also somehow gently nudging itself beyond the certainties of the doctinalist and the ironic...

Actually, I am not quite sure, since all I have is this report on the recent decision of the Supreme Judicial Circuit of Massachusetts holding that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations gives foreign nationals legal rights to the notification of their consular officials if they are arrested by Massachusetts authorities: Massachusetts, Cordy wrote, will take steps now to bring the state into compliance: “In order to enable the full effect to be given to [the Vienna Convention], we conclude that the notifications it requires must be incorporated...

...2. Prosecutors – Five dedicated prosecutors, assigned by the Department of Justice (DoJ) would represent the government and exercise prosecutorial discretion on whether or not to proceed in cases. Oversight would be conducted by the Chief, Criminal Division of DoJ. The powers of these prosecutors, as currently exists in other democratic, E.U. nations, would be great. However, these prosecutors would still operate under the ethical rules standard for all US government attorneys. 3. Specified and Qualified Defense Counsel(s) – Judge advocates would serve as the government-provided defense counsel. This group...

...not the UN Art. 51 test and an imminent threat is not even a threat yet. He should have used the phrase "threat of imminent attack" and then he would be impliedly arguing for a relaxation of the in case of armed attack requirement in favor of anticipatry self-defense. And Hostage, the Caroline test offered by Secretary Webster concerned the method or means of self-defense and was too high a standard-- as all admitted that the rebel attacks were ongoing -- and once an armed attack occurs or a process...

not for its self-refuting non-applicability to the Department of Justice (the only agency to whom the provision would realistically apply in the first instance). Here’s the language: “Absent a court order requiring the reading of such statements, no member of the Armed Forces and no official or employee of the Department of Defense or a component of the intelligence community (other than the Department of Justice) may read to a foreign national who is captured or detained outside the United States as an enemy belligerent and is in the custody...

Bill Poser By what authority could the Pentagon prevent Colonel Davis from testifying? If he is subpoenaed, why would an order not to testify be any different from an order from a civilian employer not to testify, that is, of no force, and contempt of court? J.D. Clearly the Dep't of Defense is not just like any other employer. It is an agency of our government, a part of our sovereign. They could attempt to claim a privilege under Military Commission Rule of Evidence 506...(or 505 if some of it...

...as laying down an indiscriminate barrage aimed at “cratering” the neighborhood. The cratering operation was designed to collapse the Hamas tunnels discovered when IDF ground units came under fire in the neighborhood. Initially, said the senior U.S. military officer who spoke with me about the military summaries of IDF operations, Israel’s artillery had used “suppressing fire to protect their forward units, but then poured in everything they had — in a kind of walking barrage. Suppressing fire is perfectly defensible — a walking barrage isn’t.” The Israelis’ own defense of...

...evil in mercy. Hardship is the only language that is used here. Anybody who is able to die will be able to achieve happiness for himself, he has no other hope except that. The requirement is to announce the end, and challenge the self love for life and the soul that insists to end it all and leave this life which is no longer anymore called a life, instead it itself has become death and renewable torture. Ending it is a mercy and happiness for this soul. I will not...

defense attorney for doing his job, can anyone maintain with a straight face that transferred defendants would be tried fairly? Second, and relatedly, the ICTR has uttered nary a word in protest of Erlinder’s arrest. That’s absolutely shameful — and is indicative of the Tribunal’s general contempt for defense attorneys. The very first post I ever wrote for Opinio Juris, way back in February 2006, focused on the second-class status of defense attorneys at the international tribunals. Unfortunately, it seems clear that nothing has changed in the past four years....

The WSJ has a nice discussion of the tricky legal arguments in the upcoming trial of alleged pirates in U.S. federal court. Apparently, the prosecutors and defense attorneys are battling over the fact that U.S. statutes criminalizing piracy leave the definition to “the law of nations”. Now the court in Norfolk must contend with the defense motion to dismiss the piracy charge, which would leaving only such lesser charges as attempted plunder. The prosecution argues that U.S. courts should defer to international law, especially an 1982 U.N. Law of the...