Search: self-defense

...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...

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...

...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...

...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...

...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...

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...

...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...

Ryan — friend of Opinio Juris and friend of Kevin — has been appointed Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Here is a snippet from NYU’s press release: In his new role at the Department of Defense Goodman will focus primarily on national security law and law of armed conflict. “I am very humbled to have this opportunity to work with the General Counsel and the outstanding people of the Defense Department,” said Goodman. “I look forward to the hard work and challenges ahead in...

the treaties grant investors rights but not obligations, while imposing upon states obligations unaccompanied by rights. Accordingly, he suggests that the corruption defense effectively creates investor obligations, which begin to address the BIT imbalance. I am not entirely persuaded such a perspective adds to the analysis. After all, a corruption defense does not impose any meaningful obligation whose breach entitles states to bring claims against investors; it simply affords states cover from investor claims, cover that is surely undeserved if the states themselves participated in the misbehavior. In closing, let...

...is a different one. Instead of enhancing robust interaction between the prosecution and defense, these trial-avoiding and trial-condensing procedures have created a separate track of expedited, prosecutor-dominated justice alongside the adversarial one. The vast majority of defendants see their cases decided at the prosecutor-controlled investigation stage or directed through an abbreviated adjudication stage with little activity by either the judge or defense. Admittedly, that most cases are decided without a contested trial is not shocking. What is concerning is that the trumpeted adversarial reforms are not permeating into efficiency-driven procedures...