Suchergebnisse

In this book, self-defence against non-state actors is examined by three scholars whose geographical, professional, theoretical, and methodological backgrounds and outlooks differ greatly. Their trialogue is framed by an introduction and a conclusion by the series editors. The novel scholarly format accommodates the pluralism and value changes of the current era, a shifting world order and the rise in nationalism and populism. It brings to light the cultural, professional and political pluralism which characterises international legal scholarship and exploits this pluralism as a heuristic device. This multiperspectivism exposes how political factors and intellectual styles influence the scholarly approaches and legal answers and the trialogical structure encourages its participants to decentre their perspectives. By explicitly focussing on the authors' divergence and disagreement, a richer understanding of self-defence against non-state actors is achieved, and the legal challenges and possible ways ahead identified.

This comment argues that in order for Virginia's criminal justice system to properly punish women who kill their abusers, effectively restoring their right to self-defend when necessary, Virginia must make two fundamental changes to its self-defense laws. First, Virginia's criminal justice system must advocate for the admission of expert testimony relating to battered woman's syndrome ("BWS"). This reform must be uniformly applied throughout our court system. Second, as Virginia's self-defense laws require both a reasonable fear and an overt act, the subjective standard for reasonable fear must also extend to the overt act requirement. This comment explains the significance of these reforms against the current state of Virginia's self-defense laws. In following these reforms, Virginia's courts will begin to appropriately match the punishment for women who kill their abusers to their culpability levels. As a result, a woman acting in self-defense will be able to claim as much under Virginia law when she defends herself against her abuser.

The traditional interpretation of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, by prohibiting preemptive actions, gives terrorists and states sponsoring terrorist activities de facto immunity from justice and legality. Contemporary terrorist threats make the permissibility of anticipatory self-defense not only necessary, but reasonable, fair, and just. … Preemptive strikes should not be the 'rule,' but they may be legitimate as an exception to the charter's prohibition against the use of force.

The judgment in the Oil Platforms case between Iran & the United States is the third decision by the International Court of Justice in a series that restrictively interprets the international law on the use of force. The article provides an overview of the case & comments in detail on the parties' arguments & the Court's findings on the right to self-defense, essential security interests & related evidentiary issues. The case is seen as a remarkable statement of the world court emphasizing the limits of the use of force & the role of the UN Charter at a time when the traditional law on self-defense is challenged by political events & legal writing. Adapted from the source document.