To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Self-defense (International law).
Journal articles on the topic 'Self-defense (International law)'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Self-defense (International law).'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Schachter, Oscar. "Self-Defense and the Rule of Law." American Journal of International Law 83, no. 2 (April 1989): 259–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2202738.
Full textAbstract:
Self-defense on the international level is generally regarded, at least by international lawyers, as a legal right defined and legitimated by international law. Governments, by and large, appear to agree. When they have used force, they have nearly always claimed self-defense as their legal justification. Governments disputing that claim have usually asserted that the legal conditions of self-defense were not met in the particular case. However, despite the apparent agreement that self-defense is governed by law, the meaning and validity of that proposition remain open to question. There are some who challenge the basic idea that the security of a state—its self-preservation—can and should be subjected to international law. Others question whether under present conditions the ideal of a rule of law can be applied on the international level to national security decisions. My aim in this essay is to explore some aspects of the problem raised by these challenges to the applicability of international law to claims of self-defense. It is not my intention, I should add, to consider specific interpretations of self-defense.
2
Tesón, Fernando R. "Self-Defense in International Law and Rights of Persons." Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 1 (March 2004): 87–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00455.x.
Full textAbstract:
In War and Self-Defense David Rodin uncovers many flaws of current thinking about war. Rodin correctly points out that the justification of national self-defense goes beyond the justification of individual self-defense. He accurately rejects the standard notion of moral symmetry—the accepted view that both just and unjust warriors can permissibly kill enemies as long as they observe the laws of war. Rodin vindicates the right view: if a war is unjust, each and every injury caused by the unjust warrior is a criminal act. There are no morally justified killings by those who fight unjust wars. Further, Rodin rightly rejects various holistic theories of self-defense. Last but not least, he correctly denounces what I have called the Hegelian Myth, the idea that tyrannical governments are worth defending against interventions aimed at deposing them because they are protected by the principle of sovereignty.
3
Gunawan, Yordan, Aldha Febrila, Carissa Shifa Novendra, and Siti Asdilla Dzakiyyah. "GREECE MILITARIZATION IN AEGEAN ISLAND: AN INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE." Diponegoro Law Review 8, no. 2 (October 31, 2023): 159–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.8.2.2023.159-174.
Full textAbstract:
In June 2022, President Erdogan suspended bilateral contact with Greece, citing their alleged militarization of islands in the eastern Aegean Sea, as a violation of international law. The problem that Turkey and Greece currently dealing with was caused in the first place by Greece's militarization of an island in the Aegean Sea, which was supposed to be demilitarized in the Lausanne Peace Treaty. Greece claimed that the militarization was for self-defense. In the research, the author will examine the demilitarized state of the island from the perspective of international law, and the claim that Greece has the right to act in self-defense and within the framework of world norms, as well as to make recommendations regarding what Turkey needs to do in response. The research method used is normative legal research with a case approach. Greece has indeed violated the terms of the Lausanne Peace Treat and Greece's claims of self-defense are invalid because there were no circumstances that meet the definition of self-defense. Therefore, Turkey could potentially address the matter by bringing it before the International Court of Justice.
4
Al-Soud, Moayad. "Justifications for War in Islamic Law: A Comparative Study with Contemporary International Law." Arab German Journal of Sharia and Law Sciences 2, no. 2 (June 2024): 85–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.51344/agjslsv2i24.
Full textAbstract:
This study aims to identify the reasons that justify the state’s use of military force in self-defense according to Islamic Sharia, in comparison with the justifications in contemporary international law. In this study, we have adopted the inductive method by tracing the particulars related to the topic in their sources, the deductive method in extracting rulings from Sharia and legal texts, and the comparative method in comparing the rulings of Sharia with the law. The study concluded that the justifications for war of various types in Islamic Sharia are limited to two cases: legitimate defense and the achievement of justice. This includes self-defense, repelling injustice, supporting the oppressed who are unable to defend themselves, ensuring freedom of belief, ensuring the safe delivery and dissemination of the Islamic message, cooperating with non-Muslims in fighting a common enemy, and repelling aggression against others. In contrast, international public law limits justifications to cases of legitimate defense and Security Council resolutions, and the use of military force is not justified except in the case of an armed attack. The study also concluded that offensive warfare is considered nothing more than preventive defense.
5
Urbina Escobar, Tomás. "Self-Defense Strategies Against Cyber- Attacks by Non-State Actors." Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad 18, no. 2 (December 29, 2023): 61–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.18359/ries.6639.
Full textAbstract:
This article aims to analyze and provide a state-of-the-art conceptualization of the notion of self-defense within international law and the cyber realm. In the first section, the paper explores the concepts of self-defense, attack, and the use of force in international law, followed by their application in the cyberspace. The subsequent section, specifically applies the concept of self-defense in the event of a cyber-attack perpetrated by a non-state actors. The conclusion highlights that the cyber realm context introduces the possibility that aggressions from non-state actors can yield consequences even more severe than traditional kinetic attacks. This article serves as a foundation for future discussions in the defense sector and international law.
6
Sato, Hiromi. "The Defense of Superior Orders in International Law: Some Implications for the Codification of International Criminal Law." International Criminal Law Review 9, no. 1 (2009): 117–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181209x398844.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe defense of obedience to superior orders has been one of the most controversial issues in international criminal law. Although the Nuremberg Trials put forth the “Nuremberg Principle” on the superior orders defense, the principle has remained unclear on the so-called moral choice test. Basically, the situation has not been changed throughout the subsequent international rule-making process. International society has apparently rejected automatic immunity by the superior orders defense; however, a consensus has not been achieved on the question of conditional immunity, particularly on the grounds of coercion. In tackling these remaining problems, it would be advisable to examine the legal and theoretical characteristics of each component of the relevant discussion. It would also be desirable to consider some essential difficulties incidental to international rule-making. This article, in conclusion, draws attention to the possibility of certain self-constraint with regard to international law, leaving the issue of the coercion defense to the respective national legal system.
7
Ahmad, Usama, Hamza Rehman, and Abu Bakar Khan. "Legality of Anticipatory Self-Defense in International Criminal Law: Special Case Studies in Focus." Pakistan Journal of Criminal Justice 3, no. 1 (October 31, 2023): 30–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.62585/pjcj.v3i1.16.
Full textAbstract:
On February 24, 2022, a significant international event transpired as Russian military forces crossed into Ukraine, initiating a full-scale conflict under the assertion of Anticipatory Self-defense. This development has sparked renewed discussions and inquiries into the legal and practical dimensions of Anticipatory Self-defense as a pretext for military actions. Notably, Anticipatory Self-defense has been invoked in the past, most notably by the Bush administration during the Iraq War and currently by the Israeli government in various contexts. In a similar vein, President Vladimir Putin employed the doctrine of Anticipatory Self-defense to legitimize and provide a legal basis for the Russian military's actions in Ukraine. This research paper seeks to undertake a thorough and systematic exploration of the essentials and legal aspects of Anticipatory Self-defense as a concept, examining its application and relevance in contemporary international relations. The primary objective is to shed light on the justifiability and legality of utilizing Anticipatory Self-defense as a rationale for military intervention, with a specific focus on the recent events in Ukraine. In addition to an overarching discussion on the principles and nuances of Anticipatory Self-defense, this paper will delve into select case studies from recent history, drawing upon experiences and actions taken by various countries, including the United States and Israel. Through a comprehensive analysis that combines legal, historical, and political perspectives, this research endeavor aims to provide a nuanced understanding of Anticipatory Self-defense, its utilization by different nations, and whether it can serve as a valid legal basis for military actions.Top of FormBottom of Form
8
Alkharman, Jamal Awwad, and Isyaku Hassan. "Cyberterrorism and Self-Defense in the Framework of International Law." Journal of Law and Sustainable Development 11, no. 8 (September 29, 2023): e1430. http://dx.doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i8.1430.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: The problem of international electronic terrorism has spread rapidly and affecting nations adversely. However, International Law continues to view the crimes of international terrorism through the Internet and global cyberattacks as ordinary conventional crimes. This perception created an international legal vacuum. Hence, the existence of this legal vacuum in international law to criminalize these acts, which harm the security and sovereignty of states and affect global peace and security, needs to be addressed. Specifically, the study is aimed at answering the following questions: In the event of armed Cyberterrorism, does International law justifies legitimate self-defense? What are the lacunas Regarding Cyberterrorism in International law?
Methods: This study used an empirical approach. An analysis is made in determining whether cyberattacks may be regarded as an armed assault legitimizing the victim states' right to self-defense. Relevant legal text and resources were pulled together to achieve the aim of this research. Hence, a qualitative descriptive analysis of related legal texts and other relevant documents has been conducted.
Results:The research finds that cyberattack is similar to terrorist attack but the medium of the attack is carried out in cyber is on the computer via the internet while the conventional terrorist attack is physically carried out between or among terrorist members and government troops. However, in the cyberattack, the attacker and his location are not known. The international community has not been able to incorporate cyberattack law into International law because there is no consensus from member states on cyberattacks. Shortly, a coordinated cyberattack carried out through the Internet could cause catastrophic destruction to nations that depend on the Internet, particularly in crucial target areas such as transportation, power supply, and telecommunication infrastructures. Consequently, it has been pointed out that cyber warfare operations can fall under the scope of the international crime of aggression.
Conclusion: An existing legal literature on cyberspace terrorism is exposing a conundrum. There are possible avenues for international legal action relating to terrorism. Still, because these attacks have not occurred, states lack opportunities to improve the impact that international law can make proactively. Options, especially enhancing cybersecurity in critical infrastructure, have appeal because they are strategies against cyber intrusions that are 'all hazards.' By comparison, there is a lack of reliable solutions for foreign legal activities related to the terrorist use of the Internet and social media. At the same time, this issue has become a concern, and there are opportunities for governments, businesses, and civil societies to mitigate it. This challenging background, which shows no signs of fading, may increase interest in integrating offensive cyberattacks into counter-cyber-facilitated terrorism strategies.
9
Mylonaki, Emmanouela, and Tim Burton. "The Expanded Doctrine of Self-Defence & International Security Assistance - The Case of Afghanistan 2001 – 2020." International Law Research 11, no. 1 (April 30, 2022): 335. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v11n1p335.
Full textAbstract:
The concept of self-defense in international law has been subject to discussion in recent years particularly in relation to its application on the fight against terrorism. The article re-considers such an application in the light of customary international law and via the use of the case of Afghanistan. More specifically the article aims at demonstrating how the Afghanistan mission informed the development of the classical concept of self-defense in the context of international security assistance. Via a historical presentation of the use of the concept of self-defense the work reveals key developments in the field.
10
Sefriani, Sefriani, and Vania Lutfi Safira Erlangga. "The Legality of Israel’s Self-Defense Claim of the Strikes on Hamas." Yustisia Jurnal Hukum 11, no. 3 (December 29, 2022): 197. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v11i3.61262.
Full textAbstract:
<div class="WordSection1"><p>The attacks by Israel against Palestine, which took place from 10th to 12th May in the Gaza Strip caused massive losses of civilians. Israel claims that the strikes are forms of self-defense in response to previous attacks by Hamas. This study has two objectives: (1) to analyze the arrangements of self-defense in international law and (2) to find out the legality of Israel’s self-defense claim of the strikes on Hamas on May 10-12, 2021. The study was a juridical-normative legal study with a conceptual, historical, and statutory approaches. The results of the study reveal that (1) self-defense is customary international law contains in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; (2) Israel’s self-defense claim is invalid since it does not comply with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and elements contained in International Customary Law, such as necessary, proportionality, immediacy, and imminence.</p></div><em><br clear="all" /></em>
11
Biernacki, Tomasz. "PROBLEMS OF PRE-EMPTIVE SELF DEFENSE – WHEN IS USE OF FORCE PERMITTED IN SELF-DEFENSE." Roczniki Administracji i Prawa 1, no. XXIV (March 31, 2024): 91–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.4677.
Full textAbstract:
This article concentrates on setting the moment when use of force in self defense becomes justified under public international law and comments on occasionally postulated doctrine of pre-emptive self defense. The author identifies four views on that matter, represented by the scholars, shows their legal justifications and points out potential legal issues connected to their use, both from the legal and practical point of view. The article also presents examples of use of force in order to illustrate presented issues.
12
Servín Rodríguez, Christopher A. "La legítima defensa en Derecho Internacional Penal: análisis de sus elementos con particular referencia a los crímenes de guerra." Revista Digital Mundo Asia Pacífico 5, no. 8 (June 28, 2019): 230–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.17230/nfp.15.92.6.
Full textAbstract:
The present investigation analyzes the elements of self-defense in International Criminal Law with particular reference to war crimes. In that regard, article 31.1, subsection C, of the Rome Statute is examined to demonstrate that self-defense in relation with crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression protects the person who exercise it and a third person, but in relation with war crimes, its protection also covers, without precedent, property. Nevertheless, this could be contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
13
Baradaran, Nazanin, and Homayoun Habibi. "Cyber Warfare and Self - Defense from the Perspective of International Law." Journal of Politics and Law 10, no. 4 (August 30, 2017): 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v10n4p40.
Full textAbstract:
Cyber warfare represents new kinds of weapons in the present era that have the potential to change the battlefields. The different nature of these types of weapons and their ability to create massive and widespread damage to critical infrastructure of a state, subject the traditional means of resort to force to change and is indicative of the importance that the international community must come to some consensus on the meaning of cyber warfare with in the existing jus ad bellum paradigm and legislate its governing rules, On the other hand, the inherent rights of victim states in self-defense must be supported and by detailed explanations of the governing rules for the method of attribution of responsibility to governments committing cyber-attacks, actions must be taken to prevent escape of these governments from the consequences of their illegal actions. In fact, in this article with an analytical method we will examine the issue of whether cyber attacks could be considered as an armed attack trigger the right to self defense for victim states.
14
Hamid, Abdul Ghafur. "Islamic International Law and the Right of Self-Defense of States." Journal of East Asia and International Law 2, no. 1 (May 30, 2009): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2009.2.1.03.
Full text
15
Hmoud, Mahmoud. "Are New Principles Really Needed? The Potential of the Established Distinction Between Responsibility for Attacks by Nonstate Actors and the Law of Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law 107, no. 3 (July 2013): 576–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.3.0576.
Full textAbstract:
Daniel Bethlehem’s note on self-defense principles is intended to stimulate debate on one of the most contentious issues facing the international community today, namely, the legal response to imminent or actual terrorist attacks by nonstate actors. The note contains a set of principles that are sensitive to the practical realities of the circumstances that it addresses. But it is also intended to take up a legal policy matter—to create or amend principles of international law related to the use of armed force in dealing with threats from nonstate actors. To create or amend these principles, there must be clear evidence and sufficient state practice, or at least opinio juris, pointing toward the change of existing rules or the creation of new rules to “fill the gap.” The whole balance in international law among the various rights, obligations, and interests of international actors will be compromised if the notion of self-defense is to be expanded beyond its legitimate limitations. As illustrated below by some basic examples drawn from the existing law of self-defense, there is sufficient flexibility in the current legal order to allow for the lawful exercise of self-defense in response to most situations of armed terrorist attacks.
16
YOUSFI, Dr Safia. "THE RIGHT TO LEGITIMATE DEFENSE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE IN THE PALESTINIAN AND ISRAELI CONFLICT." International Journal of Humanities and Educational Research 06, no. 02 (April 1, 2024): 185–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.47832/2757-5403.25.11.
Full textAbstract:
Following the flood Al-Aqsa on October 7, 2023, the Israeli- Palestinian conflict witnessed an unprecedented escalation in terms of Israel’s excessive use of force and the civilian casualties in Palestinian side. Furthermore, the majority of western countries aligned themselves with Israel under the pretext of its right to self defense. Israel and its allies have often resorted to this justification to justify repeated Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people. The Importance of researching this topic lies in the fact that legitimate self-defence is a right recognized by both international law and international humanitarian law. And it is a common denominator between the conflicting parties. Just as Israel invokes this right in its military operation, the Palestinian side also asserts right to self-defense using all available means. The objectives of the study can be summarized as follows: to research and explain the provisions related to legitimate self-defense in the united nations charter and its resolutions, as well as in the texts of Geneva Convention, particularly in the first additional protocol. This is done to understand the legal conditions and regulations associated with use of force in any conflict, which, when met, can exempt the practitioner from international responsibility. However, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the defences in the legal positions of the two parties and in light of the conditions of legitimate self-defense the problem in this issue revolves around determining which party’s use force towards the other is considered a justified use falling within the realm of legitimate self defense? and what is the legal assessment of the other party using force outside the scope of legitimate self-defence?. To address this issue, this topic has been divided according to the following methodology : Firstly: the international legal system of to legitimate defense. 1- the legal basis for the right to legitimate defense. 2- conditions for the legitimacy of the right legitimate defence Secondly: legal evaluation of the use of in the Palestinian, Israel conflict under the pretext of legitimate defence. 1- the legal basis for Palestinian party’s right to legitimate defense. 2- the legal nature of Israel’s use of force against the Palestinian people
17
Cai, Heng. "Cyber-Attack Regulation: Issues and Advances in International Law." Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media 19, no. 1 (October 26, 2023): 7–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/19/20231391.
Full textAbstract:
With the development of network technology, cyber-attacks and cyber wars are likely to become new forms of warfare that endanger world peace. The current international law has difficulties in the definition of national sovereignty, the identification of national responsibility and the exercise of the right of self-defense when cyber-attacks occur. The international community needs to supplement and improve the existing rule system as soon as possible and impose stronger legal constraints on transnational cyber-attacks. Some measures can be taken to solve this problem. Firstly, countries around the world should be promoted to reach a consensus on the legal concept of cyber sovereignty. Secondly, the applicable conditions of the current law need to be clarified. That is to say, the national responsibility for cyber-attacks and a clearer interpretation of threat or use of force and armed attack should be clarified. Meanwhile, the circumstances and methods of exercising the right of self-defense should be clarified when a cyber-attack is encountered. Thirdly, new rules of international law and relevant international soft laws should be created to solved these problems.
18
Brunnée, Jutta, and Stephen J. Toope. "Norm Robustness and Contestation in International Law: Self-Defense against Nonstate Actors." Journal of Global Security Studies 4, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 73–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogy039.
Full text
19
Fahmyt, Walid. "The Just War and the Mystry of Self Defense." Economics, Law and Policy 2, no. 2 (August 1, 2019): p156. http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v2n2p156.
Full textAbstract:
The theory of the Just War initiated by St. Augustine must absolutely seek peace. To avoid this being the case, two phases are defined: Jus ad Bellum; the Jus in Bello. Thus, self-defense as a just cause is a concept often addressed in international law and its explicit recognition in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter has made it even more present. But, from the adoption of the Charter to today, there are many examples of actions or arguments of states based on self-defense that are more or less in phase with each other. The most recent references to the concept of self-defense have developed in a particularly volatile international context since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the consequences that ensued. The relationship between the just war and self-defense raises some questions: can the anti-terrorism war, the preventive war and the war against non-state actors be considered part of the principle of self-defense? What are the criteria for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello considered during the Self- defense?
20
Szanter, Piotr. "SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF LEGAL REGULATIONS OF THE COMMON SELF-DEFENSE IN POLAND." Kultura Bezpieczeństwa. Nauka – Praktyka - Refleksje 32, no. 32 (December 31, 2018): 222–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.8102.
Full textAbstract:
The common self-defense is an important tool for the implementation of tasks related to civil protection in the conditions of military threats, but also for various types of cataclysms. In the light of international law, it is an important element of civil defense, and its scope and character are regulated by internal legal regulations. The aim of the article is to draw attention to the scope and nature of legal regulations of the institutions of the common self-defense in Poland. The author analyzed the inclusion of the above issues in laws, governments ordinances and acts of local law.
21
Rostow, Eugene V. "Until What? Enforcement Action or Collective Self-Defense?" American Journal of International Law 85, no. 3 (July 1991): 506–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203109.
Full textAbstract:
Should the Persian Gulf war of 1990-1991 be characterized as an “international enforcement action” of the United Nations Security Council or as a campaign of collective self-defense approved, encouraged, and blessed by the Security Council?This is not simply a nice and rather metaphysical legal issue, but an extremely practical one. The question it presents is whether the control and direction of hostilities in the gulf, their termination, and the substance of the settlement they produce were handled by the Council as the Korean War was handled, that is, as a campaign of collective self-defense, or as the United Nations’ first “international enforcement action.” According to some international lawyers, characterizing the gulf war as a Security Council “enforcement action” under the untried procedures of Articles 42-50 of the Charter would in effect eviscerate Article 51, make the exercise of each state’s “inherent” right of self-defense subject to the permission of the Security Council, threaten the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council, and thus lead to extremely grave and perhaps insoluble political difficulty. It could even destroy the United Nations.
22
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 textAbstract:
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.
23
Tölök, Csaba. "Weapon against Civil Aircraft: Legal and Ethical Aspects of the Use of Force against Civil Aircraft." Lampung Journal of International Law 6, no. 1 (March 1, 2024): 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.25041/lajil.v6i1.3259.
Full textAbstract:
Using weapons against civil aircraft is interconnected with several areas: international legal responsibility, prohibition of force, right to self-defense, ethical dilemmas, and the protection of human rights. The arguments presented in this study emphasize that while self-defense provides a theoretical possibility for using weapons against aircraft, there are still ethical challenges and unavoidable rules of international law. Therefore, using weapons against civil aircraft poses several challenges that must be considered in both legal and moral aspects. This paper presents the international legal liability regime for the use of weapons against civil aircraft, as well as its human rights and ethical responsibilities.
24
Mielniczek, Paweł. "Limits of the Right of Self-Defense of Individuals in International Criminal Law." Polish Review of International and European Law (The) 3, no. 3-4 (March 2, 2017): 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/priel.2014.3.3.03.
Full text
25
Heathcote, Gina. "Article 51 Self-Defense as a Narrative: Spectators and Heroes in International Law." Texas Wesleyan Law Review 12, no. 1 (October 2005): 131–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.37419/twlr.v12.i1.6.
Full textAbstract:
The subsequent three parts of this article take the following form. Part II introduces Article 51. Part III considers the manner in which Article 51 produces a narrative of spectatorship for the West. I draw on Al-Radi's narrative to highlight the massive gap between the narratives of Article 51, as it is perceived in mainstream academic accounts of Operation Desert Storm, and the reality of living with the consequential force. I am particularly concerned with the legal features of proportionality, collective self-defense, and the state as a "self" defending. In Part IV, I use the work of Mclnnes, Orford, and Salecl to demonstrate how the West use a form of self-projection to become both spectator and hero in internal cultural narratives. Drawing on the methodology developed by Gunning, I attend to the inherent essentialism of these narratives rather than attempting to offer alternative non-Western narratives. Finally, in Part V, I return to the force/violence distinction contained in Article 51. How does this regulator of force as legal, and violence as illegal, interact with recent claims that there is also "legitimate" force that can be used, for example, to halt humanitarian crises? I take the words of Arendt and question the shift from force as justified to force as legitimate, to conclude with further questions about emerging narratives of force that currently preoccupy Western cultures.'
26
Puspita, Natalia Yeti. "Invasi Rusia ke Ukraina Jilid II: Agresi atau Self-Defense?" Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan 7, no. 3 (November 15, 2022): 600. http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um019v7i3p600-608.
Full textAbstract:
This study analyzed the legal status of the invasion and the legitimacy of the Russian invasion of Ukraine based on international law. This study used a normative juridical method with a conceptual approach. The legal status of invasion in international law was stated to have violated the principle of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention, which threatens world peace and security as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (1), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), and paragraph (7) of the Charter of the United Nations. The legitimacy of the Russian invasion of Ukraine based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 3314 (XXIX) December 14, 1974, and Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute Amendment was more appropriately considered as part of aggression rather than self-defense. United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 3314 (XXIX) December 14, 1974, stated that an attack could be considered aggression if it fulfilled the elements of character, gravity, and scale, which resulted in an actual violation of the United Nations Charter. Article 8 bis Amendments to the Rome Statute confirmed that aggression includes the planning, preparation, and execution by a state to direct political or military action against another state.
27
Kojima, Chie. "Maritime Law Enforcement in Japan." Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law 6, no. 2 (October 3, 2018): 117–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134484-12340109.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper discusses the roles and functions of the Japan Coast Guard and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in maritime law enforcement. It analyzes practices of Japan’s maritime law enforcement in the prevention and punishment of piracy and armed robbery against ships, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, marine pollution, illegal immigration, and drug trafficking. It also examines cases of collaboration among different agencies at the domestic, regional and international levels.
28
Adwiyah, Aiin Widya Rhabiatul, Arman Anwar, and Josina Augustina Yvonne Wattimena. "Self Defense Yang Dilakukan Oleh Amerika Serikat Terhadap Jenderal Soleimani Dalam Prespektif Hukum Internasional." PATTIMURA Legal Journal 1, no. 1 (June 1, 2022): 66–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.47268/pela.v1i1.5937.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction: The use of armed force is generally prohibited under international law, and is permitted only in two exceptions, namely when a country acts in selfdefense or when the United Nations gives it the right to respond to acts of aggression.
Purposes of the Research: This study will examine the legitimacy of the use of armed force in the implementation of self-defense, and whether the use of self-defense by America is in accordance with the concept of self-defense regulated in international law.
Methods of the Research: This research is a normative legal research, using a descriptive analytical research type using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The approach used is the statutory approach, the conceptual approach, and the case approach. The technique of collecting legal materials uses a literature study which is then analyzed qualitatively to answer the problems studied.
Results Originality of the Research: The legality of the use of armed force in the right to self-defense is regulated in article 51 of the UN charter provided that an armed attack has occurred first, and must be reported to the UN Security Council beforehand. The concept of self-defense that America did to General Soleimani was not in accordance with the provisions in article 51 of the charter. In addition, America violated the laws of war because attacks were carried out in peacetime and targeted killings of certain commanders of a country violated human rights.
29
Bethlehem, Daniel. "Principles of Self-Defense—A Brief Response." American Journal of International Law 107, no. 3 (July 2013): 579–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.3.0579.
Full textAbstract:
I am pleased to provide a brief response to the comments in the pages of this Journal on my note on self-defense principles and to welcome those comments, as well as others, as contributing to the kind of debate that publication of the principles hoped to achieve. I do not agree with much that has been said but am pleased that the public debate has been joined.
30
Franck, Thomas M. "Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law 95, no. 4 (October 2001): 839–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2674629.
Full text
31
Akande, Dapo, and Thomas Liefländer. "Clarifying Necessity, Imminence, and Proportionality in the Law of Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law 107, no. 3 (July 2013): 563–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.3.0563.
Full textAbstract:
The concepts of necessity, imminence, and proportionality play a central part in Daniel Bethlehem’s sixteen proposed principles regulating a state’s use of force against an imminent or actual attack by nonstate actors. While all three are requirements that must be considered in the law of self-defense, their exact content remains somewhat unclear. In this comment, we examine how each one is conceived in Bethlehem’s principles and review the questions that remain unanswered.
32
Peilouw, Johanis Steny Franco. "The Effect of the Pre-emtive Military Strike Doctrine on Efforts to Establish New International Legal Provisions." SASI 28, no. 3 (October 13, 2022): 432. http://dx.doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v28i3.1031.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction: One of the interventional measures that can be justified under international law is self-defence. When there has been an armed attack, on the condition that it is instant, overwhelming situation, leaving no means, no moment of deliberation, that is a justifiable proposition for self-defence.Purposes of the Research: To examine and analyze the influence of the doctrine of pre-emtive military strike on efforts to establish new international legal provisions.Methods of the Research: This research uses normative juridical research methods with legal materials used, namely primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. The collection technique is carried out through literature studies and then analyzed using qualitative methods.Results of the Research: The practice of some countries today in order to anticipate such an attack, pre-emtive military strikes are carried out in the context of anticipatory self-defense, with the aim of conducting self-defense before an attack occurs. The practice of anticipatory self-defence has become a serious conversation among academics, even when the act is practiced repeatedly continuously by a number of countries and recognized for its existence, it is certain to set a precedent that leads to the creation of an international customary law. Self-defence anticipatory measures applied in the doctrine of preemptive military strike have been adopted by several countries before and after the formation of the UN organization. But this has not set a legal precedent, despite efforts to make it an International custom through the practice of countries. If this is allowed to take place, it will at some point become customary international law. The application of the preemptive military strike will affect the establishment of new international law provisions.
33
Hargrove, John Lawrence. "The Nicaragua Judgment and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law 81, no. 1 (January 1987): 135–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2202142.
Full textAbstract:
The most important single consequence of Nicaragua v. United States of America may well turn out to be its impact on the vitality of the law of the United Nations Charter governing force and self-defense. Will the case make it more likely, or less, that that law will become an increasingly effective working part of the international system?
34
Rodin, David. "Beyond National Defense." Ethics & International Affairs 18, no. 1 (March 2004): 93–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00456.x.
Full textAbstract:
In War and Self-Defense I attempt to generate a dilemma for the just war theory by arguing that the right of national defense cannot be reduced to personal rights of self-defense, nor can it be explained through an analogy with them. Jeff McMahan, David Mapel, and Fernando Tesón doubt this conclusion. In response I argue, first, that their objections are not as opposed to my basic project as they may at first appear. This is because they are premised on a conception of national defense that differs substantially from mainstream just war theory and international law. Second, I argue that McMahan's and Mapel's defense of the reductive argument is unconvincing because (among other things) it is premised on an inadequate view of the norm of proportionality. On the other hand Tesón's defense of the analogical view, based on a conception of the moral value of the just institutions of a legitimate state, cannot account for certain basic features of the international legal and moral order. These include the presumption that even unjust states can possess the right of self-defense against aggression and that it is impermissible for one just state to conquer and rule another just state. Finally I argue that the attempt to bolster the right of national defense through the concept of punishment is inappropriate because it ignores the crucial requirement for proper moral authority in the agent of punishment.
35
Davis, Michael. "Between Peace and War: The Moral Justification of State-Sanctioned Killing of Another State’s Civilian Officials." International Criminal Law Review 14, no. 4-5 (July 31, 2014): 789–812. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718123-01405004.
Full textAbstract:
The subject of this article is not (primarily) state-sanctioned assassination of high officials but of lower officials, such as scientists or engineers working for Iran's nuclear program. The following seem to be the main arguments that might be offered as moral justification of such killing of another state's civilian officials: policing, execution, war, self-defense, defense of the innocent, necessity, fairness, retribution, reasons of state, best option, and mutual consent. From a survey of these arguments, we may conclude that no state-sanctioned killing of civilian officials of another state can be justified under international law as it is or, at least, as it should be—except when, however imprudently, two or more states enter a convention specifically allowing such killings among the parties. Insofar as this conclusion differs from international law today, international law should change.
36
Robinson, Robert K., Geralyn McClure Franklin, and Joseph G. P. Paolillo. "Executive briefing/business law. The treat-to-self defense and tha ADA." Business Horizons 46, no. 2 (March 2003): 2–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0007-6813(03)00003-x.
Full text
37
Kelemen, Bence Kis, and Mátyás Kiss. "The targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani: A case study through the lens of jus ad bellum." Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 63, no. 3 (December 28, 2022): 177–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2052.2022.00405.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAt dawn on 3 January 2020 local time, the United States targeted and killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, which it claimed was an exercise of its right to self-defense. In this analysis, we will examine this operation through the system of jus contra bellum. The airstrike was conducted against a military official of a state, which differs from ‘traditional’ targeted killings, that mostly target members of non-state actors. We will pay particular attention to the antecedents of the attack, as well as the legal reasoning of the United States and the reactions of the international community. The case study will use a critical approach to analyze the claims made in support of the exercise of the US right of self-defense, in particular their lex lata justification. The study concludes that the targeted killing of General Soleimani was unquestionably illegal under the jus ad bellum regime of international law, as the United States was not the victim of an armed attack prior to the operation.
38
Alter, Karen J. "The Empire of International Law?" American Journal of International Law 113, no. 1 (January 2019): 183–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2018.81.
Full textAbstract:
This review essay examines three intellectual histories focused on fundamental transformations of international law in the early twentieth century. Juan Pablo Scarfi's Hidden History of International Law in the Americas is most interested in debates about a Pan-American international law, meaning the idea that international law might work differently in different regions, which was debated but eventually gave way to the change that Arnulf Becker Lorca, a Lecturer in Public International Law at Georgetown Law, discusses. Becker Lorca's Mestizo International Law is most interested in how the conception that international law applied only to civilized nations transformed into the modern conception that presumes sovereign equality. The Internationalists, by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro, respectively the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law and the Charles F. Southmayd Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at Yale Law School, and seeks to understand how the normal (and legal) recourse to force in international relations was replaced by an international law that bans the use of force, except in self-defense. Ideas regarding these issues started to evolve in the late 1800s, but the transformative debates occurred at roughly the same time because the Hague Peace Conferences and the League of Nations allowed contestations over old versus updated understandings of international law to flourish.
39
Zicchittu, Paolo. "The enactment of Article 11 of the Italian Constitution: Between domestic and international law." Pravni zapisi 14, no. 2 (2023): 315–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-44930.
Full textAbstract:
Starting from the recent invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army, this essay reflects on the meaning, scope, and application of Article 11 of the Italian Constitution. In particular, the paper analyzes, from a diachronic perspective, the rejection of war by examining its practical implications and focusing on the interrelationships between constitutional law and international law in defining the concept of war and collective self-defense.
40
Sapiro, Miriam. "Iraq: The Shifting Sands of Preemptive Self-Defense." American Journal of International Law 97, no. 3 (July 2003): 599–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3109845.
Full textAbstract:
The United States articulated a new concept of preventive self-defense last fall that is designed to preclude emerging threats from endangering the country. Rising like a phoenix from the ashes of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the preventive approach to national security is intended to respond to new threats posed by “shadowy networks of individuals [who] can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank.” The Bush administration wisely concluded that it could not rely solely upon a reactive security posture, due to the difficulty in deterring potential attacks by those determined to challenge the United States and the magnitude of harm that could occur from weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands. Although the administration has characterized its new approach as “preemptive,” it is more accurate to describe it as “preventive” self-defense. Rather than trying to preempt specific, imminent tiireats, the goal is to prevent more generalized threats from materializing.
41
Nur, Muhammad, and Galih Bagas Soesilo. "Russian military operation in Ukraine: analysis from the perspective of International Law." Borobudur Law Review 4, no. 1 (February 26, 2022): 54–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.31603/burrev.6747.
Full textAbstract:
The Russian government emphatically stated that it started a full official attack on Ukrainian territory on February 24, 2022. While, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, declared the imposition of martial law in all regions of his country after Russia carried out a full attack. In addition, several countries in the world responded through open statements of their respective heads of state, and some were accompanied by the imposition of sanctions. Regardless of the reasons and justifications for a decision, the community is the most affected party. This war situation, of course, needs to heed the principles of humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. This paper describes how the war between Russia and Ukraine is seen from the perspective of international law and obligations of the parties under international humanitarian law. This type of research is normative juridical research. The data collecting method used is literature study. The tools used in this research are secondary data in the form of documents consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and non-legal materials. These data were analyzed qualitatively and then presented descriptively. The results of this study found that the justifications used by the Russian government in carrying out military operations in Ukraine, namely self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention cannot be justified under international law. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is included in an international armed conflict so that in order to protect civilians and certain subjects and objects, the parties to the conflict must comply with the provisions of international humanitarian law.
42
Ronen, Yaël. "Illegal Occupation and Its Consequences." Israel Law Review 41, no. 1-2 (2008): 201–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700000224.
Full textAbstract:
This Article explores the grounds and consequences of illegal occupation. It proposes that an occupation may be considered illegal if it is involves the violation of a peremptory norm of international law that operates erga omnes, and is related to territorial status. Accordingly, illegal occupations are primarily those achieved through violation of the prohibition on the use of force and of the right to self-determination, or maintained in violation of the right to self-determination. This examination forms the basis for a systematic analysis of specific occupations that have been declared illegal by U.N. organs. The second part of the Article addresses the consequences of an occupation's illegality, in view of the political and legal objectives of determining such illegality. It considers the international responsibility for an illegal occupation; the obligation of non-recognition and the law applicable to an illegal occupation; and the right to self-defense. The Article concludes by commenting on the role of “illegal occupation” as a category under international law.
43
Gardam, Judith Gail. "Proportionality and Force in International Law." American Journal of International Law 87, no. 3 (July 1993): 391–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203645.
Full textAbstract:
Proportionality is a fundamental component of the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict—the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello. In the former, it refers to a belligerent’s response to a grievance and, in the latter, to the balance to be struck between the achievement of a military goal and the cost in terms of lives. The legitimate resort to force under the United Nations system is regarded by most commentators as restricted to the use of force in self-defense under Article 51 and collective security action under chapter VII of the UN Charter. The resort to force in both these situations is limited by the customary law requirement that it be proportionate to the unlawful aggression that gave rise to the right. In the law of armed conflict, the notion of proportionality is based on the fundamental principle that belligerents do not enjoy an unlimited choice of means to inflict damage on the enemy. Since the entry into force of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, proportionality has been both a conventional and a customary principle of the law of armed conflict.
44
Bolshakov, V., V. Svytenko, and Yu Maznychenko. "FORENSIC ASPECTS OF USING CERTAIN TECHNICAL MEANS OF ACTIVE SELF-DEFENSE." Criminalistics and Forensics, no. 66 (2021): 481–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.33994/kndise.2021.66.36.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the forensic aspects of ensuring necessary defense through the use by law enforcement officials of physical pressure of limited influence, special means (including non-lethal action) and firearms of increased efficiency. The authors, based on the results of forensic practice, assessed the effectiveness of the actions of law enforcement officers to prevent the excess of necessary defense during covert investigative (search) activities. A systematic analysis of recent studies and publications on this issue showed that in the modern global world, the main task of forensic support for law enforcement agencies in different countries is to optimize the processes of detecting, disclosing, investigating and preventing crimes and therefore contributes to the establishment of objective truth in criminal proceedings. A sufficiently high level of criminalization of various spheres of life of modern society requires deep transformations in the system of preventive measures carried out by law enforcement agencies, government bodies and public organizations. The use of special forensic knowledge, along with other forms of preventive activity, can significantly enhance the prevention, detection, disclosure and investigation of crimes. The preventive activity of forensic experts is to study and identify the causes and conditions conducive to the commission of socially dangerous acts. It is noted that Hungarian scientists consider the issues of crime prevention and operational-search activity to be the subject of forensic science. The international experience of disclosing, investigating and preventing crimes indicates a significant number of unsuccessful investigative actions due to the incompetent use of firearms and active defense equipment. It is concluded, based on the content of the concepts of disclosure, investigation and prevention of crimes, and taking into account the historical experience of forensic research of means of necessary defense and firearms, that it is necessary to develop forensic recommendations. In order to increase the efficiency of covert investigative (search) actions by law enforcement officers through the use of modern means of necessary defense and means of physical influence of limited action, as well as special types of non-lethal police weapons with improved characteristics.
45
Zainab, Nina, Dewa Nyoman Agung Noviardi, and Fadilla Farhan Eka Buana ZK. "Violation on State Sovereignty by Military and Paramilitary Activities on Nicaragua vs United States Case." SHS Web of Conferences 54 (2018): 05001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185405001.
Full textAbstract:
The Sovereignty of the State provides the rights of protection responsibility for the sovereignty of its people, respecting and fulfilling its citizens’ rights and cooperate on the international community. However, in certain dispute, the Sovereignty of the State was violated by the internal member of the state, particularly by a military and paramilitary member on the case of Nicaragua vs. the United States. This study examines the use of force by military and paramilitary members as a mean of self-defense. The use of force has violated the state sovereignty and international law on the relation of both countries. The study was conducted by researching relevant decisions and facts of International Law, customary international law, general principles of law, international treaties, conventions, declarations and decisions of international organizations. By using the study materials, in the end, it can be seen how the concept of Sovereignty of the State in International Law.
46
Cohan, John Alan. "The Bush Doctrine and the Emerging Norm of Anticipatory Self-Defense in Customary International Law." Pace International Law Review 15, no. 2 (September 1, 2003): 283. http://dx.doi.org/10.58948/2331-3536.1180.
Full text
47
Rowles, James P. "“Secret Wars,” Self-Defense and the Charter—A Reply to Professor Moore." American Journal of International Law 80, no. 3 (July 1986): 568–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2201774.
Full textAbstract:
In a recent article entitled The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order, Professor John Norton Moore, a staunch defender of United States actions toward Nicaragua, sets forth a comprehensive array of factual assertions and legal arguments to support his conclusions that support by the United States of Nicaraguan counterrevolutionaries or “contras” and its own actions against Nicaragua are justified as collective self-defense under international law. He also presents arguments to support his conclusion that the International Court of Justice has so exceeded its authority in exercising jurisdiction in the case of Nicaragua v. United States that its decisions are void, and consequently may be ignored by the United States—or, for that matter, Nicaragua. Professor Moore’s analysis and conclusions differ sharply from those of the present writer. It should therefore be useful to identify the main points of disagreement, and to suggest the policy implications of the different legal arguments and conclusions.
48
Adhazar, Virajati, Suhaidi Suhaidi, Sutiarnoto Sutiarnoto, and Jelly Leviza. "TANGGUNG JAWAB NEGARA ATAS DIGUNAKANNYA SENJATA SPACE-BASED MISSILE INTERCEPTOR SEBAGAI BENTUK UPAYA SELF-DEFENSE DARI NEGARA PENYERANG TERHADAP NEGARA PIHAK KETIGA DITINJAU DARI HUKUM INTERNASIONAL." Res Nullius Law Journal 4, no. 1 (January 14, 2022): 100–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.34010/rnlj.v4i1.5976.
Full textAbstract:
Self-defense as an inherent right owned by a country is regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter and due to the use of Space-Based Missile Interceptor (SBMI) weapons in space, the 1967 outer space treaty must also be guided. Because Article 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of weapons in space, the legality of using SBMI weapons is questionable. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the legal provisions, forms of state accountability and the process of prosecuting compensation for countries using these weapons according to international law. The results of the study indicate that the use of SBMI weapons does not conflict with international law, because it is based on Article 103 of the UN Charter which states that if there are provisions in other legal rules that are contrary to the UN Charter, the UN Charter must be guided. So that self-defense actions based on Article 51 of the UN Charter do not violate the law. The party that must be absolutely responsible is the country that started the conflict, because it has violated the rules of international law in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. The compensation process is carried out according to the rules of the space liability convention 1972 and if in practice the party who is responsible does not show good faith in providing compensation, then it can be continued by referring to the dispute resolution process in the UN Charter.
49
Wilmshurst, Elizabeth, and Michael Wood. "Self-Defense Against Nonstate Actors: Reflections on the “Bethlehem Principles”." American Journal of International Law 107, no. 2 (April 2013): 390–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.2.0390.
Full textAbstract:
Daniel Bethlehem has set down sixteen principles relevant to the scope of a state’s right of self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors “with the intention of stimulating a wider debate.” While these principles “are published under [the author’s] responsibility alone,” they have “nonetheless been informed by detailed discussions over recent years with foreign ministry, defense ministry, and military legal advisers from a number of states who have operational experience in these matters.”
50
Beddard, R. "Self-Defense Against the Use of Force in International Law. By STANIMIR A. ALEXANDROV. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996. 352 pp. 81." British Yearbook of International Law 69, no. 1 (January 1, 1999): 268–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bybil/69.1.268.
Full text