In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

22 Feb

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...
22.02.08 | |

05 Oct

...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...
05.10.12 | |

14 Aug

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...
14.08.10 | |

23 Oct

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...
23.10.09 | |

27 Aug

...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...
27.08.14 | |

22 Feb

...human rights record in its public statements. [3] Vietnam justified its invasion of Cambodia as self-defence against armed attack. [4] The Coalition initially provided no justification whatsoever for creating no-fly zones over Iraq. The UK eventually invoked UHI, but no other member of the Coalition did likewise. Indeed, the US later argued – unpersuasively, to be sure – that the no-fly zones were permissible acts of self-defence. [5] Only the three states Harold mentions – the UK, Belgium, and Denmark – invoked UHI to justify NATO’s bombing of the Serbs....
22.02.18 | |

27 Feb

...sovereign, so use of force there must be with state sanction, else it is piracy. (Perhaps it is the very lack of state sanction that makes the ends "private.") The 9th Circuit panel got this one right. kevin Smith Do the whalers have a right of preemptive self defense? If the Sea Shepherds have made their intentions clear by previous attacks, can not the whalers just blast them out of the water before they attack again. I agree with Tim that it seems very troubling if the political motivation of...
27.02.13 | |

25 Mar

In Medellin, the Court held “that neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes directly enforceable federal law . . . .” This comment focuses on the effect of the Avena judgment itself, and disregards the President’s Memorandum. The majority was undoubtedly correct to hold that Avena is not “directly enforceable federal law.” In fact, Avena is not federal law at all. The Constitution is federal law. Statutes are federal law. Treaties are federal law. But decisions of the ICJ are not federal law. The Court erred, however, by concluding that...
25.03.08 | |

20 Mar

...though, SC approval is needed to invade another country, unless acting in self-defense. The U.S. clearly had neother a resolution nor a claim of self-defense when we went into Iraq. Second, while Eugene correctly states that "[the principle of] self-determination is no guarantee of independence," he largely skips the legal analysis and simply states that the U.S. and Europe have been against secessions in other cases. Neither he nor you actually applies the legal principles and analyzes whether these are distinguishable cases. Realize, I do not think the Kosovars have...
20.03.08 | |

21 Apr

[Major John C. Dehn is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Law, US Military Academy, West Point, NY. He teaches International Law, and Constitutional and Military Law. He is writing in his personal capacity and his views do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, the US Army, or the US Military Academy.] First, I express my thanks to Opinio Juris for permitting me to comment on recent events here at West Point in my personal capacity as an international law scholar and U.S. citizen. Last...
21.04.09 | |

02 May

...torture people" The principle of reciprocity was inherent and necessary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Its purpose is to set practical self-interest as a guard on the standards expressed in the conventions. If we abide by the rules, our enemies will also abide by the rules. True, the spirit of the conventions also expresses a fundamental moral sense concerning how combatants ought to behave, but the contingent morality of the letter protects the fundamental morality of the spirit - not vice versa. The drafters recognized that, as a matter...
02.05.09 | |

03 Sep

...in the text to incorporate the Australian amendment had not removed the element of ambiguity about which he had previously spoken, and he suggested that, apart from the use of legitimate self-defense, the text as it stood at present might well be interpreted as authorizing the use of force unilaterally by a state, claiming that such action was in accordance with the purposes of the Organization. … The Delegate of Norway said that the Committee should reconsider the present language which did not seem to reflect satisfactorily its intentions, and...
03.09.13 | |