Search results

Christian Tomuschat's (2006) discussion of Israel's military response to Hisbollah's hostage-taking of two Israeli soldiers in summer of 2006 provides background for addressing several issues pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states & nations to self defense within the framework of international law & Article 51 of the UN Charter. Tomuschat's view that only lawful military targets can be engaged when a state responds to an armed attack is supported, adding that armed hostage-taking can constitute an "armed attack," thus meeting the condition of Article 51 for a legitimate military action. It is argued, however, that the use of armed force in self-defense against nonstate actors is neither a "war" nor a "military conflict," as those terms are known under international law. Accordingly, the UK was not at war with the US in 1837, nor can the US be at war with al Qaeda now. It is stressed that regardless whether Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory to target nonstate actors met the definition of "war," it was bound by international law to limit civilian casualties through proper application of the principles of necessity & proportionality & to observe human rights, which are nonderogable regardless of a claimed necessity to violate them. Z. Dubiel

On 17 December 1997, US magistrate Judge Marcel Notzon ordered the release of Elizapban Ntakirutimana, who had been held in custody in Texas pending a decision on a request by the United States for his extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides that (a) "[nationals . . . shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers," and that (b) "[t]he said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph." In Breard v. Greene, the Supreme Court nearly recognized that, under the Convention, the individual petitioner had actionable rights that had been violated. The Court concluded, however, that the rights were "defaulted" when not pursued in the state courts, that the errors would not be prejudicial, and that the subsequendy enacted federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act limited the petitioner's "ability to obtain relief based on violations of the Vienna Convention."