Suchergebnisse

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?

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.

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?

In view of the practices of World War II, international society could no longer be under the principles of traditional international law. This work provides a comprehensive treatment of the development of international law and its influence on international relations.

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.