In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: self-defense

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 | |

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 | |

20 Feb

...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...
20.02.11 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

08 Sep

...of the laws of war. Further, it is an international armed conflict b/c U.S. military are dropping bombs on an insurgent (ISIS) and our presence has internationalized the armed conflict. The reason why the President does not need congressional approval is not b/c of a nonsense claim that we are not at "war," but b/c the President has constitutional authority to engage in measures of self-defense and collective self-defense -- e.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=2061835 I suppose that the best argument for U.S. use of force in Syria against ISIS would be that...
08.09.14 | |

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 | |

09 Jul

...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...
09.07.10 | |

06 Apr

rights to "individual, or collective self-defense," under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter! If Hamas continues to launch its rockets from population centers, Israel must take such measures as are feasible to minimize civilian casualties, but is not otherwise required to refrain from responding to threats to its national security. The unvarnished reality is that this conflict will continue until either Israel devastates Gaza in this perpetual war, or the Hamas barbarians succeed on the battlefield, which seems even far less likely to occur! Kevin Jon Heller Mike 71, With...
06.04.11 | |

14 Jun

...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...
14.06.21 | |