Search: self-defense
17 Sep Importance of the Brennan Speech (I)
...international law—to self defense. This is not news, or controversial. See, e.g., U.N. Resolution 1373 (Sept. 28, 2001). There is no such self-defense rationale available as a matter of the jus ad bellum with respect to all international terrorist groups.) But what about Brennan’s references, early in his speech, to al-Qaida “adherents” and “affiliates”? Although Brennan explains that “adherents” of al-Qaida–including “individuals . . . with little or no contact with the group itself”–have become a serious national security challenge because they can and do conduct attacks in the United...10 Mar Why the “Public Authority” Defense Does Not Work for the CIA
...would a CIA drone operator be entitled to a public-authority defense? I don’t see how. I won’t spend much time explaining why “national self-defense” does not provide the requisite public authority; as I explain in my signature-strikes article (and as Marko Milanovic explains here), a legitimate act of self-defense may justify the US violating another state’s sovereignty, but it does not — and cannot — justify depriving the target of his right to life. That deprivation would have to be independently justified either by IHL (if the killing took place...09 Jul Guest Post: Self-Defence, Collateral Damage and Precautions in Attack
what is the effect of the Europ. Conv. on H.R., art. 2(2)(a) (self-defense -- "in defence of any person from unlawful violence"). Is there a human right to self-defense? Ian Henderson Jordan, We agree that the international law rules and domestic self-defence rules are different. Indeed, that is the very point of our article. Having trained a soldier to understand and comply with the LOAC, we foresee potential problems if that soldier then relies on ‘self-defence’ as the relevant legal justification. And all the more so as it may not...03 Oct Two Questions from the al-Awlaki Killing
...self-defense targetings on its soil does not dissipate the right of the U.S. under UN art. 51 to engage in self-defense targetings of those who are direct participants in armed attacks (DPAA). Its the self-defense paradigm that controls here, as noted in my article in FSU's J. of Transnat'l L. & Pol'y 2010, particularly with respect to Yemen. Moreover, under human rights law, he had no relevant human right unless he was in the "effective control" of the U.S., which was not the case. And if he had a relevant...17 Feb The Absence of Practice Supporting the “Unwilling or Unable” Test
Regular readers of the blog know that one of my hobbyhorses is the “unwilling or unable” test for self-defense against non-state actors. As I have often pointed out, scholars seem much more enamored with the test than states. The newest (regrettable) case in point: my friend Claus Kress, who is one of the world’s best international-law scholars. Here is what he writes in an otherwise-excellent contribution to Just Security about the use of force against ISIL in Syria (emphasis mine): It therefore follows not only from the right of self-defense’s...15 Oct BU Law School’s “Ten Years In” Conference
not field military units is sustained hostilities, and so forth. The interesting question is not targeting persons who are DPH in a real theatre of war or DPAA in self-defense, but detention when an armed conflict does not exist. What will be the authority of the U.S. to detain terrorist suspects without trial? Will it relate to an expanded notion of self-defense? Can it? I have written (like Abe Sofaer) that since we can kill in self-defense we should be able to capture. I had in mind capture for trial....24 May The U.S. Perspective on the Legal Basis for the bin Laden Operation
...to present an imminent threat that might justify the use of force in self-defense, but also that bin Laden himself continued to pose such an imminent threat. It is not obvious that such a determination—that an individual poses an imminent threat—is necessary for any international law purposes. But it surely helps to explain why this particular use of force against al Qaeda satisfied the basic requirements that uses of force in self-defense must be proportional and necessary to address the threat in question. Of course, international law requires that the...05 Apr Drone Warfare and the Koh Speech – A Roundup of Links
United States - this being the causal chain driving some of our current actions. The public will not, however, get behind calling such drone attacks "self-defense." The term self-defense implies to the public something you do in the face of an imminent, immediate threat - and whacking Pakistani militant chieftains out on the far end of that long causal chain is not it. Used to justify any targeted killing anywhere on the globe, "self-defense" sounds Orwellian. When "the international soft law community" makes this their "next big thing," you won't...
23 Oct Encoding Empire: How Legal Rhetoric Justifies Occupation and Masks Resistance
[Joyce Choo worked as a fellow with UNRWA during the 2025 Gaza war. She holds an LLM in international legal studies from NYU School of Law, where she was a Transitional Justice Scholar] In recent years, the doctrine of self-defense has become a powerful tool for states to entrench territorial dominance. When Israel bombs Gaza, India militarizes Kashmir and Pakistan occupies Balochistan, they all invoke the same justification: self-defense. Legal language, such as “proportionality”, “necessity” and “defensive” has shifted from limiting violence to legitimizing it. These are not isolated cases....