Search: self-defense
09 Nov The Unwilling Part of “Unwilling or Unable”
be necessary *if* Pakistan were able and willing itself to capture/kill bin Laden, or if Pakistan would have consented (in which latter case it wouldn't violate 2(4) whether or not in self-defense). 6. To ascertain whether Pakistan was willing and able (or consenting), however, would likely have made the self-defensive action impossible, due to the (presumably) serious risk of an ISI tip-off, even if the leaders of Pakistan *were,* in fact, willing and able (or consenting). 7. Therefore the self-defense action satisfied the "necessity" requirement even without consultation, because it...06 Mar The Balakot Strikes: Analysing India’s “Non-Military Preemptive Action”
...anticipatory self-defence recognises the existence of the right in the face of a manifestly specific and imminent attack. The concept of preventive self-defence does not seek to rely on any concrete threat of an armed attack, and operates in the realm of contingency and conjecture (eg. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour). It is beyond debate that reactionary self-defence or self-defence simpliciter has a firm grounding in international law. The right of ‘anticipatory self-defence’ has also, over time, received recognition to some extent. However, ‘preventive self-defence’ has found few supporters. Interestingly,...24 May One of the Things We Learned About Targeting
if it had been firing across into Canadian territory -- as a matter of "self-defense." And the British lawyer was correct. Even today, self-defense against ongoing non-state actor armed attacks can be permissible without the consent of the state from which such armed attacks emanate and without two or more states being at war. Precisely the circumstance addressed in the Caroline incident despite disagreement concerning methods and timing of the British measures of self-defense. For years now, yes, there are two alternative paradigms to consider: (1) the law of war...21 May No, the UN Has Not Said the U.S. Is Engaged in an “Armed Conflict” with Al Qaeda
...often walk into that courtroom voluntarily. Law that isn't enforced doesn't exist for all practical purposes. Daniel I think a large part of the confusion is whether responding to an 'armed attack' (in art. 51) with force automatically creates an 'armed conflict'. There's a strong argument to be made that the UNSC's recital of the right to self defense in this resolution implies that self defense can be justified against an armed attack originating from a non-State target (at least, when the s-d is necessary and proportionate). If you believe...04 May Quick Thoughts on UBL’s Killing — and a Response to Lewis
...(Of course, there is dispute about whether some of these actions were legitimate self-defense; but for present purposes what's important is that there's no dispute that there have been many instance such historical cases where the claim of self-defense was justified.) I've always assumed that such self-defense actions are governed by IHL, in two important respects. First, the many constraints of IHL apply -- distinction, proportionality, necessity, no perfidy, no denial of quarter, etc. Second, members of the armed forces of the state or non-state actor against whom the self-defense...05 Mar Debating the Legality of an Assault on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
JordanPaust Response... The inherent right of self-defense is expessly and unavoidably limited in Article 51 of the Charter by the phrase "if an armed attack occurs"! The Caroline incident actually involved ongoing armed attacks on Canada by insurgents who had been supported in part by The Caroline. See, e.g. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717 The Caroline incident does NOT support anticipatory self-defense, much less preemptive self-defense when an armed attack is not even imminent (if anticipatory self-defense could ever be lawful in view of the express limit in Article 51 of the Charter). "imminent...14 Jan Boundaries of the Battlefield Symposium Insight
...an opportunity to explore those differences and find common ground. The symposium, co-sponsored by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, IHCL Platform, Konrad Adenauer Foundation, City of The Hague, and the Dutch Foreign Ministry, was especially valuable against the backdrop of former UK Legal Adviser Daniel Bethlehem’s new AJIL piece (see Ashley Deeks’ discussion here) on self-defense against non-state actors. This first post will flag the debate at the conference on targeted killing and what Ken Anderson has called “naked self-defense.” A second post (posted over at Lawfare) analyzes another issue...23 Jun Let’s Call Killing al-Awlaki What It Still Is — Murder
...http://ssrn.com/abstract=1718548 )Moreover, the President has constitutional authority to engage in permissible measures of self-defense and collective self-defense under international law under Art. II, sec. 3 of the Const. -- which is also addressed in part in the preamble to the AUMF in general terms, not limited to the application of the laws of war in a given context. (see http://ssrn.com/abstracgt=2061835 ) I suspect that in the future there will be more detailed attention to the legitimacy of measures of self and collective self-defense. p.s. it does not seem that international...