Search: self-defense

...bar. Non liquet Oops, I didn't even notice that Scott Horton made that point already on his blog at Harper's yesterday! Just Dropping By I suspect, for example, Yoo will argue immunity and get a government-funded lawyer in his defense (although he may well spend some money to retain his own counsel and maybe those costs could add up). Actually, I suspect that even if the government doesn't provide a lawyer, Yoo won't have to pay a penny because many of the same people who paid Scooter Libby's defense bills...

[ 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....

...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...

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...

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...

...start somewhere!" I actually find it more logical and believable to say that a Jew or an Arab have an intrinsic interest in boycotting Israel specifically over their respective ethnorreligious origins and Israeli policy, but of course this is not a compelling argument for anyone else (and it seems to me it isn't even a compelling argument for most Jews either). Guest KJH: "Israel’s policies toward Palestinians are murderous and discriminatory" Response: Tell us how Isreali policies are "murderous" ... Self-defense is "murderous"? Again, a prime example of an absurd...

...way they did was one basic and crucial rationale: "This takes foremost into account Israel's right to self-defense against armed attacks from outside its territory". That is it. That is the sole justification of the blockade. Israel's right to defend itself. The fact that a very notable manual was written or that tradition has it that naval blockades were only imposed in IACs does not change this truth. The truth is that we should not force states to fight terror with one hand tied behind their backs. The fact that...

Patrick S. O'Donnell I absolutely agree with you that piracy is not equivalent to terrorism and therefore that pirates are not terrorists. However, one premise of the argument also severs the notion of terrorism from nation-states and that doesn't work either. As Robert Goodin makes clear in What's Wrong With Terrorism (2006), "states and state officials can practise terrorism, too. There is nothing in the concept itself to preclude that possibility. And there is much in the historical record to demonstrate that the possibility is a real one. States have...

to engage in permissible measures of self-defense, as even noted in the preamble to the AUMF! The President's authority is based in his/her obligation to faithfully execute the "Laws," which include international law as part of the laws of the United States (which, in turn, include the international law of self-defense). Members of the CIA can be acting on behalf of the Executive and the United States and carry out lawful measures of self-defense under international law. Such lawful measures would not be "unlawful" killings or murder. jens David Ohlin...

...dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that...

...by one belligerent does not free the other belligerent from those laws. What was Israel supposed to do? Only launch proportionate attacks or rely on less indiscriminate methods of self-defense. B A Dear Kevin, You state Israel was supposed to (a) either launch proportionate attacks or (b) rely on less indiscriminate methods of self-defense. What proportionate responses were available? I think the Israelis were already proportionate inasmuch as they did not counter attack immediately but waited months for "international pressure" to work to get Hamas to stop firing rockets. How...