Search results

Developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship in recent years have marked a change in nature of the Australia-Japan relationship. The two countries have never been so involved in matters of security, partly due to memories of Japan's actions in World War II (WWII) and the emphasis on trade relations during the Cold War. It was not until the end of the Cold War did the strategic relationship start to make progress outside intelligence cooperation. The major factor explaining for the post-Cold War development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship was the move by Japan to make an 'international contribution' that reflected its status as the second largest economy. The actives that could be conducted by the Japanese Self-Defense Force (JSDF) had been and continue to be constrained due to the incorporation of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution. Established during the American-led occupation of Japan following the end of WWII, the purpose of Article 9 was to take away Japan's ability to wage war. This had the effect of greatly restricting Japan's ability to be involved in any operation not directly related to the defence of Japan, meaning that JSDF involvement in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO) was not possible. However, following the first Gulf War, the establishment on the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Law (UNPKO Law) in 1992, allowed for the deployment of the JSDF to UNPKO and disaster relief operations. It was this move by Japan that resulted in an increase in the number of times the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the JSDF operated together in the same theatre. ADF-JSDF cooperation in UNPKO such as in Cambodia and East Timor, as well as in coalitions such as the one in Iraq is widely recognised as being significant for development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship. Increased instances of ADF-JSDF cooperation on the ground has been reflected in a greater number of Australia-Japan security agreements that have been established in an attempt to formalise the strategic relationship. The 2007 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation signed by the Howard and Abe governments was important as it established a framework for closer security cooperation and marked the first time Japan had entered into a security agreement with any country other than the United States (US). By formalising the Australia-Japan strategic relationship through the 2007 Joint Declaration, a link between Australia and Japan was made within the context of their respective alliances with the US. This link resulted in the view that a trilateral strategic relationship between Australia, Japan and the US was in development, and could result in an alliance. Additionally, moves by Japan in particular, to involve democratic value-sharing countries in a strategic relationship that included India had the consequence of making the purpose of the 2007 Joint Declaration a means to contain China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region. It was not until the Rudd Government came into power in late 2007 did the Australia-Japan strategic relationship become refined. The 2008 Memorandum on Defence Cooperation set the agenda for future ADF-JSDF collaboration in international peace cooperation activities. According to the Memorandum, the ADF-JSDF collaboration was to progress in four areas: peacekeeping operations; disaster relief; combating international terrorism; and in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). This agenda reflected past ADF-JSDF collaboration and demonstrated an understanding that such collaboration was most meaningful and practical in operations of low intensity. Subsequent developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship have supported this move. The 2010 Australia-Japan Acquisition and Cross- Servicing Agreement (ACSA), which allows for the exchange of goods and services during joint training exercises, is one such development. In addition to military exchanges and joint training exercises, the ACSA is a means to enhance the interoperability between the ADF and JSDF, allowing for closer cooperation in operations. There is much potential in the ACSA to iron out some of the gaps in the capabilities between the two forces, in part due to the constraints placed on the JSDF by Article 9. Although the ACSA has not been applied as of yet, possibilities lie in the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT). It is in the direction of practical collaboration in international peace cooperation activities that the ADF-JSDF will continue to develop.

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?

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.

Sovereignty and the authority to use force -- The relevance of international law -- Self-defence as a justification for war : the geo-political and war on terror models -- The humanitarian model for recourse to force -- How force is used -- Weapons -- 'Post-conflict' and governance -- The liberal peace : peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding -- Justice and accountability -- Second generation human security -- What does human security require of international law?

Could Hitler have pleaded insanity? Can a soldier participating in a massacre claim duress because his superior forced him? In domestic criminal law complete defences, such as insanity and duress, are rather common legal figures. But what is the role of these arguments in international criminal law? Can horrific large-scale crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, ever be excused? This book provides an analysis of cases featuring complete defences at international criminal courts (IMT, IMTFE, ICTY, ICTR and ICC). Conclusion of the analysis is that international criminal courts recognize most complete defences in principle. However, they consistently reject themin practice. Courts thus tend to say: "Insanity is available as a complete defence?but not in this case". This conclusion raises questions as to the compatibility between complete defences and international crimes: When they are never accepted in practice, should such defences be available at all?

Determining the earliest point in time at which international law authorises a state to exercise its inherent right of self-defence is an issue which has been debated, but unsatisfactorily reasoned, by scholars and states since the 1960's. Yet it remains arguably the most pressing question of law that faces the international community. This book unravels the legal and factual complications which have obscured the answer to this question. In contrast to most other works, it takes an historic approach by tracing the evolution of the rights, rules and principles of international law which have governed the use of force by states since the 16th century. Its emphasis on self-defence provides the reader with a new and complete understanding of how and why the international legal framework limits defensive force to repelling an imminent threat or use of offensive force which is directed at the territory of a state. Taking an historic approach enables this book to resurrect an understanding of the human defensive instinct which has guided the formation of the international law of self-defence. It also explains the true legal nature and scope of the inherent right of self-defence, of anticipatory self-defence and provides a definition of the legal commencement of an armed attack for the purpose of Article 51 of the Charter. Finally, the reader will receive a unique source of research materials and analysis of state practice and of scholarly works concerning self-defence and the use of force since the 16th century, which is suitable for all readers of international law around the world.

Over 25 years have passed since the defeat and unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan in August 1945. During the intervening years she has been rebuilt into an economic superpower, but, unlike other superpowers, one rejecting military force as a means of foreign policy. Much of this reluctance to rearm has been based on the ability of Japan to rely on the United States-Japan Security Treaty to deter direct external aggression.

"This book offers a philosophical analysis of the moral and legal justifications for the use of force. While the book focuses on the ethics self-defense, it also explores its relation to lesser evil justifications, public authority, the justification of punishment, and the ethics of war. Steinhoff's account of the moral use of force covers a wide range of topics, including the nature of justification in general, the precise elements of different justifications, the logic of claim- and liberty-rights and of rights forfeiture, the value of human life and its limits, and the princples of reciprocity and precaution. While the author's analysis is primarily philosophical, it is informed by a metaethical stance that also places heavy emphasis on existing law and legal scholarship. In doing so, the book appeals to widely shared moral intuitions, precepts, and concepts grounded in criminal law. Self-Defense, Necessity, and Punishment offers the most comprehensive and systematic account of the ethics of self-defense. It will be of interest to scholars and graduate students working in applied ethics and moral philosophy, philosophy of law, and political philosophy."--