Journal articles: 'Self-defence (law)'

1

Shah, Niaz A. "Self-defence in Islamic Law." Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law Online 12, no. 1 (2005): 181–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22112987-91000131.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Infield, Paul. "Self‐defence and the law." Safer Communities 2, no. 4 (October 2003): 45–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17578043200300052.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Leverick, F. "Defending Self-Defence." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 3 (February 14, 2007): 563–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqm012.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Chainoglou, Kalliopi. "Reconceptualising Self-Defence in International Law." King's Law Journal 18, no. 1 (January 2007): 61–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2007.11427664.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Ronzitti, N. "The Expanding Law of Self-Defence." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 11, no. 3 (November 24, 2006): 343–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krl021.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Bernsmann, Klaus. "Private Self-Defence and Necessity in German Penal Law and in the Penal Law Proposal — Some Remarks." Israel Law Review 30, no. 1-2 (1996): 171–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002122370001503x.

Full text

Abstract:

Self-defence and necessity are central institutions of the General Part of German Penal Law. Numerous problems of considerable practical and theoretical relevance are connected with them. How to deal with “self-defence” and “necessity” is also an indicator of liberality or, on the other hand, of the minimum solidarity and public spirit which a State can concede to its citizens or demand of them. In German criminal theory, “self-defence” and “necessity” are closely connected with the release of the distinction between justification and excuse and all conclusions derived thereof.Instead of elaborating on fundamental or purely theoretical problems concerning self-defence and necessity, an illustration of the contents of the German provisions of self-defence and necessity from a more technical, but nevertheless practical, point of view will be discussed. In the course of the discussion, some differences between the Israeli Draft law and the German law will be pointed out, and some problems which are unsolved in German law and may possibly confront Israeli law in the future will be brought to your attention.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Stefańska, Blanka Julita. "Intervention-related self-defence." Ius Novum 17, no. 2 (June 1, 2023): 20–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/in-2023-0010.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract The scholarly and research-focused article examines the content of Article 25 §§ 4 and 5 CC, which was transferred to the new Article 231b §§ 1 and 2 CC of Chapter XXIX of the Criminal Code by means of Act of 20 February 2015 amending the Criminal Code Act and Certain Other Acts. The regulation concerns the intervention-related self-defence, wherein a person acting in self-defence and repelling an attack on another’s good protected by law, while simultaneously protecting public security or order, is granted the same legal protection as public officials. The article analyses the genesis and development of this defence, its legal nature, objectives, conditions for application, the scope of criminal law protection for a person acting within the intervention-related self-defence, the exclusion of this protection, and the relationship between Article 231b § 1 and Article 217a CC. The primary scientific objective is to evaluate the legitimacy of its introduction to the Criminal Code and the correctness of defining the premises for its application and its scope. The aim of the considerations is to demonstrate that this measure, despite the negative assessment of its introduction to the Criminal Code in the doctrine, can play a vital role in ensuring security and public order.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Cooper, Daisy. "War, Aggression and Self‐Defence." Commonwealth Law Bulletin 32, no. 4 (December 2006): 741–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050710601179127.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

TSAGOURIAS, NICHOLAS. "Self-Defence against Non-state Actors: The Interaction between Self-Defence as a Primary Rule and Self-Defence as a Secondary Rule." Leiden Journal of International Law 29, no. 3 (June 22, 2016): 801–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156516000327.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article examines the law of self-defence as applied to non-state attacks in light of the coalition air strikes against ISIL in Syria. It critiques the two current interpretations of the law of self-defence – one based on attribution and the other on the ‘unable or unwilling’ test – for failing to address adequately the security threat posed by non-state actors or for not addressing convincingly the legal issues arising from the fact that the self-defence action unfolds on the territory of another state. For this reason, it proposes an alternative framework which combines the primary rule of self-defence to justify the use of defensive force against non-state actors, with the secondary rule of self-defence to excuse the incidental breach of the territorial state's sovereignty.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Ye, Shunyao. "Research on the Right of Self-Defence from the Perspective of International Law." Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media 5, no. 1 (May 17, 2023): 844–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/5/2022994.

Full text

Abstract:

The right of self-defence is an indispensable concept in international law, especially in the UN charter. States can protect their legitimate rights and interests from other states infringement by exercising different types of the right of self-defence. However, with the rapid advancement of technology, economy, and politics, the right of self-defense faces new challenges. The collective self-defence, the anti-terrorism self-defence and the preventive self-defence are not perfect, and the specific content of the armed attack is not clear. Although there is no clear solution system in international law at present, it can be thought of and tried from the aspects of perfecting restrictive provisions, reasonably interpreting relevant terms, and strengthening the compelling force of international law.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Kusumayani, Rahmah. "NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR WEAPON DEVELOPMENT IN REGARDS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF DEFENCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW." Padjadjaran Journal of International Law 4, no. 2 (April 12, 2021): 192–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.411.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Self defence known as an inherent right that is owned by states to protect its sovereignty from attack by other states. The international rules about self defence do not give any limitation about the type of weapon that can be used by states, including the threat or use of nuclear weapons to act self defence. In Practice, many requirements must be fulfilled by states when they claim the act of self defence. Since 2006, North Korea proclaimed its capability to develop nuclear weapons based on self defence argument. The Security Council concluded that North Korea’s development of nuclear weapon program is a threat to international peace and security and condemned such acts with sanctions based on act 41 UN Charter. The purposes of this study are to examine whether the North Korea’s nuclear program as an act of self defence and the UN Security Council’s sanctions to North Korea are in line with the principle of self defence in international law. The result of this research concludes that North Korea’s nuclear program does not meet the requirements as stated in article 51 UN Charter and customary international law regarding self defence. North Korea can not prove that the United States’ threat is jeopardy, and has a wide and dangerous effect for North Korea. Regarding the Security Council’s primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, states must report his act of self defence to the Security Council immediately. As therefore, sanctions given by the Security Council are in line with the principle of self defence since North Korea can not fulfil the requested requirements of self defence. Keywords: Act 51 UN Charter, Korean Nuclear Development, Principle of self defence Abstrak Hak untuk menerapkan self defence dimiliki oleh tiap negara untuk melindungi kedaulatannya dari serangan negara lain. Peraturan internasional mengenai self defence tidak membatasi jenis senjata yang dapat digunakan oleh negara, termasuk ancaman dan penggunaan senjata nuklir dalam melakukan tindakan self defence. Dalam prakteknya banyak syarat yang harus dipenuhi oleh negara-negara ketika akan mengklaim tindakan self defence. Sejak tahun 2006, Korea Utara mendeklarasikan kesiapannya dalam mengembangkan senjata nuklir dengan alasan self defence. Dewan Keamanan menganggap bahwa program pengembangan senjata nuklir Korea Utara mengancam perdamaian dan keamanan internasional dan berdasarkan Pasal 41 Piagam PBB, Dewan Keamanan memberikan sanksi kepada Korea Utara. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengkaji legalitas pengembangan senjata nuklir di Korea Utara atas tindakan yang diklaim negaranya sebagai self defence serta kesesuaian penerapan sanksi Dewan Keamanan PBB dengan prinsip self defence. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa program senjata nuklir Korea Utara tidak memenuhi syarat yang terdapat dalam Pasal 51 Piagam PBB maupun hukum kebiasaan internasional terkait self defence. Korea Utara tidak bisa membuktikan bahwa ancaman Amerika Serikat bersifat genting dan nyata menimbulkan efek luas dan berbahaya bagi Korea Utara. Berdasarkan tugas utama Dewan Keamanan dalam menjaga kedamaian dan keamanan internasional, negara-negara harus melaporkan tindakan self defence kepada Dewan Keamanan dengan segera. Berdasarkan uraian diatas, sanksi yang diberikan Dewan Keamanan tidak bertentangan dengan prinsip self defence karena Korea Utara tidak bisa memenuhi hal-hal yang disyaratkan untuk melakukan tindakan self defence. Kata Kunci: Pasal 51 Piagam PBB, Pengembangan Senjata Nuklir Korea Utara, Prinsip Pembelaan Diri

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Pichhadze, Amir. "Proposals for Reforming the Law of Self-Defence." Journal of Criminal Law 72, no. 5 (October 2008): 409–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2008.72.5.525.

Full text

Abstract:

The English law of self-defence has attracted significant attention following the controversial decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Martin. At the heart of the controversy is the determination of the reasonableness of a defendant's apprehension of the necessity to use a particular amount of force in self-defence. When comparing the defendant's apprehension and actions to those of a reasonable person in the same circumstances, what characteristics of the defendant must be attributable to the reasonable person in order for the test to be appropriate? This article argues that while the Court of Appeal's reluctance to allow a psychologically individualised standard of reasonableness may have been correct, the court should have reformulated the purely objective standard into a contextual objective standard. It is suggested that unless such reform is undertaken, the English law of self-defence will remain unduly constrained. Reform proposals by the Law Commission have made it clear that such reform is not on the horizon. As an alternative, the Law Commission proposed a reformulated defence of provocation. While this alternative is commendable, it does not remove the need to reform the objective standard of reasonableness in the law of self-defence.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Wilkinson, T. M. "Contagious Disease and Self-Defence." Res Publica 13, no. 4 (March 13, 2007): 339–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11158-007-9024-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Renzo, Massimo. "State Legitimacy and Self-defence." Law and Philosophy 30, no. 5 (June 2, 2011): 575–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10982-011-9105-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Stewart, Hamish. "The Role of Reasonableness in Self-Defence." Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 16, no. 2 (July 2003): 317–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s084182090000374x.

Full text

Abstract:

Most common law jurisdictions require mistakes about self-defence to be reasonable. But there is a lively debate about whether reasonably mistaken self-defence should be regarded as excused or justified. On one view, reasonably mistaken self-defence is not justified but excused because the conduct is, all things considered, wrongful; on another view, reasonably mistaken self-defence is justified because the reasonable appearance of an attack gives one a right to respond. This paper argues in favour of the second view. When viewed through the lens of cases involving the defence of third parties, the first view leads to counter-intuitive results, and that the source of these results is the effort to characterize mistaken self-defence through conceptual rather than normative argument. Moreover, the second view is more compatible with both the blame-assigning and conduct-guiding aspects of criminal law.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Kleczkowska, Agata. "Autonomous Weapons and the Right to Self-Defence." Israel Law Review 56, no. 1 (March 2023): 24–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s002122372200019x.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article focuses on the application of autonomous weapons (AWs) in defensive systems and, consequently, assesses the conditions of the legality of employing such weapons from the perspective of the right to self-defence. How far may humans exert control over AWs? Are there any legal constraints in using AWs for the purpose of self-defence? How does their use fit into the traditional criteria of self-defence? The article claims that there are no legal grounds to exclude AWs in advance from being employed to exercise the right to self-defence. In general, the legality of their use depends on how they were pre-programmed by humans and whether they were activated under proper circumstances. The article is divided into three parts. The first discusses how human control over AWs affects the legality of their use. Secondly, the article analyses the criteria of necessity and proportionality during the exercise of the right to self-defence in the context of the employment of AWs. Finally, the use of AWs for anticipatory, pre-emptive or preventive self-defence is investigated.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Horder, Jeremy. "Redrawing the Boundaries of Self-Defence." Modern Law Review 58, no. 3 (May 1995): 431–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02022.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Fehr, Colton. "The Moral Foundation of Criminal Defences and the Limits of Constitutional Law." McGill Law Journal 68, no. 3 (July 1, 2023): 291–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.26443/law.v68i3.1307.

Full text

Abstract:

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v Khill provided a novel moral framework for self-defence. Whereas self-defence was previously categorized as a justification, the Court now maintains that it constitutes an excuse in some cases. In other cases, the Court suggests self-defence sits between justification and excuse, captured by a principle I elsewhere call “moral permissibility”. The Court’s choice to adopt a more robust relationship between the moral principles underlying justification/excuse and self-defence is principled. However, the basis for that conclusion—the application of moral philosophy to the law of criminal defences—applies with equal force to the law of duress and necessity. Unfortunately, the statutory duress defence and section 8(3) of the Criminal Code limit the juristic scope of those defences. Although these restrictions may be challenged under section 7 of the Charter, this challenge will likely fail as defendants need not be denied a defence. Instead, they will be denied a proper moral assessment of their actions. To instill greater coherency into the law, it is prudent to repeal the statutory duress defence. This approach would allow courts to utilize the broad wording of the new “defence of person” provision to develop the law of self-defence, necessity, and duress in line with the moral philosophy underlying these defences. Constitutionalizing the principles underlying criminal defences can nevertheless serve two broader purposes: mitigating the tendency of courts and counsel to unduly rely upon other less transparent (jury nullification) or heavy-handed (judicial review) legal devices to avoid conviction.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Richter, Dagmar. "Indirekte Selbstverteidigung." Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 26, no. 4 (2023): 626–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/1435-439x-2023-4-626.

Full text

Abstract:

Is the right of self-defence (Art. 51 UN Charter), in equivalence to the prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2 No. 4 UN Charter), limited to forcible measures of counter-defence or can it also justify non-forcible measures (e.g. suspension of international treaties, confiscation of state assets), which in themselves violate international law? There is no such equivalence in the relationship between Article 51 and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. However, it is decisive for the justification of non-military measures of self-defence that all requirements of Art. 51 UN Charter are fulfilled. In this context, the term “indirect self-defence” expresses the fact that such measures must also be aimed at the purpose of defence. More precise requirements can be found, among others, in the ILC Draft Articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, the basic ideas of which can be applied to the suspension of other obligations under international law as well. If the requirements are observed, the aggressor state will not be put in a state of lawlessness, nor will the right of countermeasures or other international law be undermined. Nor does this make states participating in collective self-defence by non-military measures a party to the conflict. Rather, indirect self-defence expands the possibility of exerting direct pressure on the aggressor state, independent of countermeasures, as befits the dimension of violations of the prohibition on the use of force. At the same time, the veto rights of destructive powers in the Security Council run empty, because they must constructively form majorities in order to block measures of indirect self-defence.abstract en Is the right of self-defence (Art. 51 UN Charter), in equivalence to the prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2 No. 4 UN Charter), limited to forcible measures of counter-defence or can it also justify non-forcible measures (e.g. suspension of international treaties, confiscation of state assets), which in themselves violate international law? There is no such equivalence in the relationship between Article 51 and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. However, it is decisive for the justification of non-military measures of self-defence that all requirements of Art. 51 UN Charter are fulfilled. In this context, the term “indirect self-defence” expresses the fact that such measures must also be aimed at the purpose of defence. More precise requirements can be found, among others, in the ILC Draft Articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, the basic ideas of which can be applied to the suspension of other obligations under international law as well. If the requirements are observed, the aggressor state will not be put in a state of lawlessness, nor will the right of countermeasures or other international law be undermined. Nor does this make states participating in collective self-defence by non-military measures a party to the conflict. Rather, indirect self-defence expands the possibility of exerting direct pressure on the aggressor state, independent of countermeasures, as befits the dimension of violations of the prohibition on the use of force. At the same time, the veto rights of destructive powers in the Security Council run empty, because they must constructively form majorities in order to block measures of indirect self-defence.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

McLaughlin, Rob. "Rules of Engagement and the Situation of Individual Self-Defence: Applicable Law and Coherence with Operational Context." Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 14, no. 1 (March 22, 2023): 70–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10066.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Within a broader discussion as to the place and role of self-defence within Rules of Engagement, this article seeks to describe some of the drafting and application issues that often present when employing Rules of Engagement – as a distillation of law, policy, operational context, and capability – to resolve, or to encapsulate the resolution achieved, in each mission-specific dialogue between operational context and the law of individual self-defence. To this end, the analysis will focus primarily (but not exclusively) upon the availability to military members of the ‘right’ of individual self-defence in otherwise law of armed conflict-governed operations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Milne, Fiona. "Don Juan, the Law and Byronic Self-Defence." Byron Journal 49, no. 1 (June 1, 2021): 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/bj.2021.6.

Full text

Abstract:

From the publication of the first two cantos of Don Juan in 1819, the poem’s legal status was in doubt. Although never found blasphemous or seditious in a criminal court, Byron’s copyright in Don Juan was not upheld by the civil courts, owing to the possibility that the poem might be ‘injurious’ to the public. Alongside these courtroom debates, Byron and his poetry came under increasingly intense scrutiny before the figurative ‘tribunal of the public’, in periodicals and newspapers. Reviewers and commentators appraised Don Juan in the vocabulary of the criminal law, assuming the roles of advocate, jury and judge. This article analyses some of these legal and quasi-legal attacks, and investigates how Byron engaged with them. Don Juan, I propose, bears traces of the legal pressures Byron faced, absorbing the threat of criminal prosecution and exploring the question of what an oppositional statement of self-defence might look like.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Türkoğlu, Selin. "Self-Defence and Domestic Violence: An Analysis of Turkish Criminal Law Practice." Athens Journal of Law 9, no. 1 (December 29, 2022): 103–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.30958/ajl.9-1-5.

Full text

Abstract:

How to assess the criminal liability of the abused woman who kills her abuser while in his sleep or in a state of unconsciousness has become a salient topic of debate in recent years. Although there is a tendency to consider these acts within the context of self-defence with the impact of “the battered woman syndrome” theory and the movement to battle against domestic violence, the debate still persists. Despite some opinions that such acts should be considered self-defence in the Turkish doctrine, the Turkish Courts, for the most part, tend to evaluate them as provocation. According to the Turkish Penal Code, only acts that are a response to occurring attacks or those that are certain to ensue are considered “self-defence.” Domestic violence is not accepted as itself as an attack if it does not meet these conditions. In this study, we will examine how such cases are treated in Turkish law practice in light of three decisions of The Court of Cassation. Prior to the explanations about self-defence and domestic violence, we will provide an overview of how this practice should be interpreted in the context of domestic violence according to the Turkish penal doctrine (I). It is argued that the conditions of self-defence are gender-neutral provisions, indicating they do not take into consideration “the battered woman syndrome” or female victims of domestic violence. This study will also focus on the conditions of self-defence in the Turkish Penal Code and will analyse it in the context of domestic violence (II). Keywords: Violence against women; domestic violence; battered woman syndrome; self-defence; provocation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Loska, Elżbieta. "Self-defence in Legislation of Christian Emperors." Studia Prawnicze KUL, no. 4 (December 31, 2019): 131–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.31743/sp.10611.

Full text

Abstract:

The notion of self-defence was visible in Roman law even in the archaic period. First mention that can be recognised as such was the right to kill a thief referred to in the Law of Twelve Tables. The institution gradually developed, encompassing a growing range of cases. However, regulations were still mostly casuistic. That also applies to the legislation of Christian emperors.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Khanna, Pallavi. "STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND SELF-DEFENCE IN CYBERSPACE." BRICS Law Journal 5, no. 4 (December 15, 2018): 139–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-4-139-154.

Full text

Abstract:

Given the increasing role and use of cyberspace in our daily lives, it is important to consider the large-scale dynamics of the cyber forum. Shifting the focus from individuals to nation states as participants that engage in activities in cyberspace raises doubts over the status of nations in this domain. Do they continue to remain sovereign entities on such a platform? Do they have the right to defend themselves against attacks from other nations? These questions have been subject to a lot of debate in the context of international law. The aim of this paper is to study the implications of the principle of state sovereignty and selfdefence in cyberspace. The paper focuses on two prime considerations of sovereignty and self-defence in the context of cyberspace and its link to international law. Thus the scope is limited to concepts such as territorial jurisdiction, sovereignty, attribution and selfdefence. While doing so, the researcher seeks to answer questions such as, Is international law applicable to cyberspace? Can cyberspace be called a sovereign domain? Do principles of territorial jurisdiction apply to cyberspace? How does the attribution mechanism work in cyberspace? Under what circumstances are states permitted to exercise the right of self-defence against cyber attacks? and What are the deficiencies in international law governing cyberspace?

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Grimal, F. "Missile Defence Shields: Automated and Anticipatory Self-Defence?" Journal of Conflict and Security Law 19, no. 2 (June 4, 2014): 317–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/kru001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Husak, Douglas N. "The Complete Guide to Self Defence." Law and Philosophy 15, no. 4 (1996): 399. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3505034.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Frowe, Helen. "A Practical Account of Self-Defence." Law and Philosophy 29, no. 3 (October 20, 2009): 245–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10982-009-9062-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Husak, Douglas N. "?The complete guide to self defence?" Law and Philosophy 15, no. 4 (1996): 399–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00127213.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Chandler, Jennifer A. "Technological Self-Help and Equality in Cyberspace." McGill Law Journal 56, no. 1 (February 22, 2011): 39–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/045698ar.

Full text

Abstract:

New technologies challenge the law in many ways, for example, they extend one’s capacity to harm others and to defend oneself from harm by others. These changes require the law to decide whether we have legal rights to be free from those harms, and whether we may react against those harms extrajudicially through some form of self-help (e.g., self-defence or defence of third parties) or whether we must resort to legal mechanisms alone. These questions have been challenging to answer in the cyberspace context, where new interests and new harms have emerged. The legal limits on permissible self-defence have historically been a function of necessity and proportionality to the threat. However, this article argues that case law and historical commentary reveal that equality between individuals is also an important policy issue underlying the limits on self-defence. The use of technologies in self-defence brings the question of equality to the fore since technologies may sometimes neutralize an inequality in strength between an attacker and a defender. A legal approach that limits resort to technological tools in self-defence would ratify and preserve that inequality. However, the relationship between technology and human equality is complex, and this article proposes an analytical structure for understanding it. The objective is to understand which technologies promote equality while imposing the least social costs when used in self-defence. The article proposes principles (including explicit consideration of the effects on equality) for setting limits on technological self-help, and illustrates their use by applying them to several forms of cyberspace counter-strikes against hackers, phishers, spammers, and peer-to-peer networks.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Klami, Hannu Tapani. "Defence and self-defence a structural analysis of legal argumentation." International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4, no. 1 (February 1991): 19–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01303505.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Bowman, Paul. "The Birth of British Self-Defence: 1604-1904." Martial Arts Studies, no. 14 (September 29, 2023): 52–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.18573/mas.182.

Full text

Abstract:

This article examines the discourse of self-defence as it emerged and developed in the British context after the introduction of self-defence as a legal term in English common law in 1604. Twentieth-century self-defence discourse is comparatively more well-researched than previous periods, but this study suggests that the concerns, contours and characteristics of current self-defence discourse were established much earlier, growing in the seventeenth, flowering in the eighteenth and maturing during the nineteenth centuries. The study traces this development by examining self-defence books published in Britain between the seventeenth and early twentieth centuries. This covers a 300-year period from 1604 (the year that the legal precedent for self-defence was set in England) to 1904 (the year in which publications on jujutsu mark an orientalist reconfiguration of a hitherto Eurocentric self-defence discourse).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Holton, R., and S. Shute. "Self-Control in the Modern Provocation Defence." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 1 (October 28, 2005): 49–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql034.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

UNIACKE, SUZANNE. "Killing in Self-Defence by F. Leverick." Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 47, no. 4 (September 2008): 442–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00534_1.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Giles, Marianne. "Self-Defence and Mistake: A Way Forward." Modern Law Review 53, no. 2 (March 1990): 187–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1990.tb01803.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Gasser, Hans-Peter. "War, Aggression and Self-defence." International Review of the Red Cross 29, no. 270 (June 1989): 256–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020860400073204.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Baros, Miroslav. "The Macedonian Conflict and International Law: Self-Determination or Self-Defence?" International Peacekeeping 10, no. 3 (August 2003): 60–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13533310308559336.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Gutnyk, Vitalii. "The Right to Defence in Criminal Proceedings: International Law Aspects." Teisė 124 (September 28, 2022): 94–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/teise.2022.124.7.

Full text

Abstract:

The article deals with the right to defence in criminal proceedings in accordance with international law norms. It is proved that ensuring the right to defence is one of the basic principles of criminal justice and is a prerequisite for the achievement of a fair trial. Particular attention is paid to the right to self-defence (defence in person), the right to defence through choosing legal assistance, the right to assigned legal assistance. Attention is drawn to the fact that the right to defence in the international human rights courts and the international criminal courts is based on the same principles, respectively its understanding is the same in these international courts.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Kinacioglu, M. "War, Aggression and Self-Defence." European Journal of International Law 18, no. 4 (September 1, 2007): 778–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm040.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Shah, N. A. "Self-defence, Anticipatory Self-defence and Pre-emption: International Law's Response to Terrorism." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 95–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krm006.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Sheehy, Elizabeth. "Expert evidence on coercive control in support of self-defence: The trial of Teresa Craig." Criminology & Criminal Justice 18, no. 1 (September 20, 2017): 100–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895817733524.

Full text

Abstract:

This article uses the transcripts from an abused woman’s trial in Canada for first-degree murder of her husband to explore the expert testimony provided by Dr Evan Stark to support a potential defence of self-defence. His evidence focused on coercive control theory and provoked extreme resistance from Crown prosecutors, such that self-defence was ultimately removed from the jury’s consideration. The trial illustrates the advantages and challenges of using coercive control theory as well as its future potential.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

VAN STEENBERGHE, RAPHAËL. "Self-Defence in Response to Attacks by Non-state Actors in the Light of Recent State Practice: A Step Forward?" Leiden Journal of International Law 23, no. 1 (February 2, 2010): 183–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156509990380.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractThis article analyses the recent state practice in which the right of self-defence has been invoked in order to justify the use of force in response to attacks by non-state actors. The main purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the law of self-defence has evolved through this practice. It is submitted that the latter confirms the tendency, evidenced by the US operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ in Afghanistan in 2001, towards allowing states to respond in self-defence to private armed attacks, that is, attacks which are committed by non-state actors only. The article also aims to shed some light on other fundamental conditions of the law of self-defence which played a significant role in the legal assessment of the recent state practice. It is argued in this respect that this practice confirms that any armed attack must reach some level of gravity – which may be assessed by accumulating minor uses of force – in order to trigger the right of self-defence, and that proportionality of the action taken in self-defence may be assessed in quantitative terms, but only as a means of making a prima facie judgement about the necessity of this action.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

White, Nigel D. "Human rights and personal self-defence in international law." Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 5, no. 2 (July 3, 2018): 395–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1518810.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Guiora, A. N. "Anticipatory Self-Defence and International Law--A Re-Evaluation." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 13, no. 1 (June 18, 2008): 3–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krn017.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Miller, Edward. "Self-Defence, International Law, and the Six Day War." Israel Law Review 20, no. 1 (1985): 49–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700008608.

Full text

Abstract:

“As long as war is regarded as wicked,it will always have its fascination.”Oscar WildeAccording to the textbooks, the unfettered right of a state to go to war was, until modern times, regarded as one of the essential trappings of statehood, an indispensable aspect of sovereignty. Such a broad assertion does however require qualification, as ever since the time of Saint Augustine, scholars have attempted to set limits to the extent of the state's discretion to go to war. The task has not been an easy one, and it may indeed aptly be remarked that “Warfare has been as difficult to justify satisfactorily in theory as it has been endemic in practice”.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

VAN STEENBERGHE, RAPHAËL. "The Law of Self-Defence and the New Argumentative Landscape on the Expansionists’ Side." Leiden Journal of International Law 29, no. 1 (February 1, 2016): 43–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156515000643.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractRecent developments in legal scholarship evidence that the orthodoxy on the law on the use of force has dramatically switched from a restrictivist to an expansionist perspective. This article seeks to analyse this recent shift, especially with respect to the law of self-defence, from an expansionist point of view. Its purpose is to examine the argumentative landscape which currently exists on the expansionists’ side about that law. It observes that such argumentative landscape has significantly changed, as expansionists tend to pay less attention to the traditional arguments based on state practice and increasingly rely on policy considerations in order to strengthen and to go deeper in their wide conception of the law of self-defence. It calls into question such increasing recourse to policy oriented arguments and argues that those arguments cannot justify alone any evolution of the law of self-defence, while emphasizing that state practice remains central in that respect and explaining the different ways through which this practice may play such a role.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Hadisusilo, Priyo, Sigit Riyanto, and Harry Purwanto. "Redefining the Air Defence Identification Zone in the Framework of Customary International Law." Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 11, no. 1 (April 28, 2022): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v11i1.57891.

Full text

Abstract:

The use of force against other countries is strictly prohibited and has the character of jus cogens. However, this provision is not rigidly applied in the self-defence context codified in the United Nations Charter 1945 Article 51, also in the air defence context through the existence of the Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). This research discusses whether ADIZ embodies the anticipatory efforts in the framework of customary international law. The research results indicate that the determination of ADIZ is not a form of self-defence principle in Article 51, which is the realm of jus ad bellum. Moreover, the conservative self-defence prerequisites in Article 51 are no longer relevant in line with the revolutionary development of aviation and its armament technology. Therefore, ADIZ, as a state security practice, constitutes a form of anticipatory efforts within the framework of long-standing state practice as customary international law. Furthermore, the use of force for violators is limited by Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention 1944 and the Standard and Recommended Practices.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Dingwall, Gavin. "Intoxicated Mistakes about the Need for Self-Defence." Modern Law Review 70, no. 1 (January 2007): 127–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00628_1.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

den Dekker, G. "War, Aggression and Self-defence." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 7, no. 2 (October 1, 2002): 315–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/7.2.315.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Wake, Nicola. "‘His home is his castle. And mine is a cage’: a new partial defence for primary victims who kill." Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 66, no. 2 (August 17, 2018): 151–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v66i2.148.

Full text

Abstract:

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Crimes Amendment (Abolition of Defensive Homicide) Act 2014 which had the effect of repealing the Australian state of Victoria’s only general ‘partial defence’ of defensive homicide, and replaced the existing statutory self-defence in murder/manslaughter provisions and general common law self-defence rules with a single test. The abolition of defensive homicide means there is now no general ‘partial defence’ to accommodate cases falling short of self-defence. The change is likely to mean that some primary victims will find themselves bereft of a defence. This is the experience in New Zealand where the Family Violence Death Review Committee recently recommended the reintroduction of a partial defence, postabolition of provocation in 2009. Primary victims in New Zealand are being convicted of murder and sentences are double those issued pre-2009. Both jurisdictions require that a new partial defence be introduced, and accordingly, an entirely new defence predicated on a fear of serious violence and several threshold filter mechanisms designed to accommodate the circumstances of primary victims is advanced herein. The proposed framework draws upon earlier recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales, and a comprehensive review of the operation of ss 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but the novel framework rejects the paradoxical loss of self-control requirement and sexed normative standard operating within that jurisdiction. The recommendations are complemented by social framework evidence and mandatory jury directions, modelled on the law in Victoria. A novel interlocutory appeal procedure designed to prevent unnecessary appellate court litigation is also outlined. This bespoke model provides an appropriate via media and optimal solution to the problems faced by primary victims in Victoria and New Zealand.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Khen, Hilly Moodrick-Even. "From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’." Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 10, no. 2 (November 23, 2019): 303–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18781527-01002006.

Full text

Abstract:

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Self-defence (law)'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles