Search results

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.

This fully updated fourth edition clearly and comprehensively explains the law on the use of force in international law, including use of force by States, the role of the UN, and the role of regional organisations in the maintenance of international peace and security

Self-defense is a universally accepted exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international law, and it has been subjected to careful academic scrutiny. The prohibition of the threat of force, although equally important in terms of its normative status to the prohibition on use, has attracted far less academic commentary to date. This Article examines the relationship between the two prohibitions--of the use and threat of force--and considers the largely unexplored possibility of states utilizing a threat of force as a means of lawful defensive response: self-defense in the form of a threat. The status of this concept under international law is assessed, and the criteria that may regulate it are analyzed. This Article is based on an analogy between traditional "forcible" self-defense and the notion of threats made in self-defense. However, one cannot automatically apply the well-established rules of self-defense to a defensive threat, largely because of the practical differences between a threatened response and a response involving actual force.

The right of States to use force extraterritorially is conditioned by requirements of necessity and proportionality. This book provides a detailed analysis of those requirements, and a coherent and up-to-date account of the applicable contemporary international law in this field.

1. Introduction -- Part I. Pre-Charter customary law on self-defence: 2. Self-defence in ancient and medieval natural law -- 3. Self-defence as a measure short of war -- 4. Self-defence as an exception to the prohibition of war -- 5. The right of self-defence and the drafting of the UN Charter -- 6. The temporal dimension of self-defence at the time of the Charter -- Part II. Post-Charter customary law on self-defence: 7. The right of self-defence in the judgments of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals -- 8. Self-defence in state-to-state conflicts -- 9. Self-defence and weapons of mass destruction -- 10. Self-defence against non-state actors -- 11. The interpretation of self-defence and the United Nations -- 12. The temporal dimension of post-Charter self-defence -- Part III. Anticipatory action in self-defence and international customary law: 13. The legality of anticipatory action in self-defence -- 14. The limits of anticipatory action in self-defence

International Law and New Wars examines how international law fails to address the contemporary experience of what are known as 'new wars' - instances of armed conflict and violence in places such as Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. International law, largely constructed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, rests to a great extent on the outmoded concept of war drawn from European experience - inter-state clashes involving battles between regular and identifiable armed forces. The book shows how different approaches are associated with different interpretations of international law, and, in some cases, this has dangerously weakened the legal restraints on war established after 1945. It puts forward a practical case for what it defines as second generation human security and the implications this carries for international law

Who was to blame and why it matters -- The Syrian connection -- Egypt flexes its muscle -- Historical opportunity for Israel -- Britain has a plan -- Southern passage: Aqaba as cause for war -- "The Americans will not sit shiva" -- How to attack: "we have to be the victims" -- Turkey shoot -- Cover-up in the Security Council -- Security Council "in the dark" -- Cover-up in the General Assembly -- How to read the silence on aggression -- The experts fall in line -- No threat? No matter -- War by mistake -- Defending in advance -- A new doctrine of preventive war -- Permanent takeover? -- Blocking the path to peace