Suchergebnisse

There has been an ongoing debate over recent years about the scope of a state's right of selfdefense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors. The debate predates the Al Qaeda attacks against the World Trade Center and elsewhere in the United States on September 11,2001, but those events sharpened its focus and gave it greater operational urgency. While an important strand of the debate has taken place in academic journals and public forums, there has been another strand, largely away from the public gaze, within governments and between them, about what the appropriate principles are, and ought to be, in respect of such conduct. Insofar as these discussions have informed the practice of states and their appreciations of legality, they carry particular weight, being material both to the crystallization and development of customary international law and to the interpretation of treaties.

Necessity (Law); international law; Libya

Joris van de Riet (Leiden University - Leiden Law School) has posted Self-Determination in International Law: A Kantian Perspective (Kant's Project of Enlightenment: XIVth International Kant Congress (Bonn, 8-13 September 2024)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: The right to...

"The right to self-determination has played a crucial role in the process of assisting oppressed people to put an end to colonial domination. Outside of the decolonization context, however, its relevance and application has constantly been challenged and debated. This book examines the role played by self-determination in international law with regard to post-conflict state building. It discusses the question of whether self-determination protects local populations from the intervention of international state-builders in domestic affairs. With a focus on the right as it applies to the people of an independent state, it explores how self-determination concerns that arise in the post-conflict period play out in relation to the reconstruction process. The book analyses the situation in Somalia as a means of drawing out the impact and significance of the legal principle of self-determination in the process of rebuilding post-conflict institutions. In so doing, it seeks to highlight how the relevance of self-determination is often overlooked in this context."--

T. Markus Funk, who has written extensively on self-defense law, has an article with this title here (in The Champion, the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers); here's the abstract: The cases of Jordan Neely, Ahmaud Arbery, Kyle Rittenhouse, and George Alan Kelly brought the long-simmering national debate about self-defense to a full…

Abstract
David Boonin has recently advanced several challenges to the self-defense justification of punishment. Boonin argues that the self-defense justification of punishment justifies punishing the innocent, justifies disproportionate punishment, cannot account for mitigating excuses, and does not justify intentionally harming offenders as we do when we punish them. In this paper, I argue that the self-defense justification, suitably understood, can avoid all of these problems. To help demonstrate the self-defense theory's attraction, I also develop some contrasts between the self-defense justification, Warren Quinn's better-known "auto-retaliator" argument, and desert-based justifications of punishment. In sum, I show that the self-defense justification of punishment is more resilient than commonly supposed and deserves to be taken seriously as a justification of punishment.

David Rodin's book, War and Self Defense, is a subtle and provocative analysis of the claim of self-defense and its relation to modern war. Building on his analysis, I raise some further issues about self-defense as a justification of modern nation state war. Principal among these is what I call the conscription paradox: if the state's right to make war is grounded in the right of its citizens to self-defense, how do we explain the right of modern states to conscript its citizens into the military – and order them to die, if need be? This problem has been acknowledged by liberal individual thinkers over the years, but not solved. It raises questions of whether a coherent account of current nation state military practice can be grounded in individual self-defense.

"October 1976." ; "This training course . is available to State and local governments for use in training auxiliary personnel for law enforcement agencies." ; Developed for the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency by the Technical Research Services Divisions, International Association of Chiefs of Police. ; Supersedes SM-10.1A and SM-10.1B, August 1965. ; Mode of access: Internet.