Search: self-defense

...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...

[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...

...the Day of Judgment, something one need not worry about if one has obeyed God's revelations, e.g., not sought superiority on earth or spread corruption. Re: Timmerman's take... 'In making his case, he does not position himself as president of Iran, but attempts to set himself up as a spokesman for all Muslims....' I do not at all see how this inference is made. He may be articulating what many Muslims believe, but theres's no evidence that the letter is being used as a vehicle 'to set himself up as...

...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...

...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...

...O'Sullivan I really think that you might wish to check the record before careening to such precipitous--and erroneous--conclusions. In this case, the defense had alleged NO reason to believe that this particular intermediary had done anything wrong. In other words, this was a total fishing expedition by the defense. And let us remember that the intermediaries are not the witnesses. Conditions are so dangerous on the ground in the DRC that it is difficult for the prosecution to talk to witnesses without endangering their safety. Bona fide intermediaries, as this...

...executive powers, abridged individual liberties and collective self-sacrifice. Second, Mr. Bellinger’s belief that the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda is the sin qua non of his overarching analysis. The United States acts in self-defense after attacks on its “embassies, military vessels, financial center, military headquarters and capital city, killing more than 3000 people in the process.” However, this assertion depends upon these assaults being “armed attacks”. In the aftermath of 9/11, sympathetic international organizations – foremost, the UN Security Council and NATO – averred that they...

...decision. But the issue was not before the Court in this case, and had not been raised by the defendant as a reason for dismissal, apart from asserting the defense in their answer to the complaint filed in 2006. Let’s back up and review the facts. When Plaintiffs filed their original suit in 2002, they chose to sue only two Shell entities: the Shell parent entity, based in the Netherlands and U.K. (“Shell Europe” for the purposes of this post), and Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary, which allegedly aided and abetted the...

...that they will be tortured” – a claim that everyone outside the Administration knows to be patently false. Worse still, he has rationalized his refusal to offer evidence in defense of that mantra with the excuse that “as much as we would like to deny the numerous inaccurate charges made against our government, because many of the accusations relate to alleged intelligence activities, we have found that we cannot comment upon them except in a general way.” And what about military activities? Is it hyperbolic and absurd to be outraged...

[ Klaudia Klonowska is a PhD Researcher at the Asser Institute and the University of Amsterdam, and is serving as Managing Director of the Manual on the International Law Applicable to Artificial Intelligence in Warfare. Sofie van der Maarel is Assistant Professor in Military Ethics and Leadership at the Netherlands Defense Academy and affiliated to Radboud University Nijmegen.] Introduction The concept of “deep sensing” has been steadily gaining traction in military discussions and media coverage, especially in the U.S., indicating an emerging buzzword amongst marketing strategies surrounding emerging military technologies....

Ah, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act… has any defense spending bill had so much defense-related legal policy embedded in it? In addition to all the very important stuff about military detentions, it turns out the NDAA also authorizes the U.S. military to engage in offensive cyber-attacks (h/t Gary Schmitt). Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, allies and interests. The act further clarifies that such actions should be subject to...

...basis. The below case studies will also not get into an analysis of the degree of state responsibility or obligation that might be inferred based on the degree of US support to, or control or direction over, the groups in question. In addition, it is worth noting that the ODI-GPPi study itself is not purely focused on legal risks; it also considers how such mechanisms attempted to address other policy commitments, for example, to mitigate security risks or diplomatic consequences surrounding these forces. However, a substantial focus of many of...