Suchergebnisse

AbstractSometimes victims cannot defend themselves against the threat posed to them, but they can nevertheless harm or even kill their aggressors. Since they cannot defend themselves, it is unclear how such harming can be justified under the title of self-defense. According to the "Honor Solution," by violently resisting their aggressors, victims do (partially) defend themselves because they protect their honor. Blake Hereth recently argued that this solution is incompatible with the feminist commitment that sexual assault victims ought not to be shamed or dishonored. The purpose of my paper is to reject Hereth's criticism and defend the Honor Solution.

Cyber has been around for over a decade and yet we are still faces with a situation of a very weak or rather no regulation. This is being heavily influenced by our weak technological development and due to the nature of cyberspace and the Internet. Cyber warfare poses interesting questions for us. It is one of a kind type of warfare, the one we cannot see or feel, but it's impacts are instantaneous and potentially devastating. States and scholars agree on that. This thesis attempts to explore possibilities of application of existing international laws to amend this situation and answer the questions if it is adequate or at all possible. While scholars are still arguing about the basics of what cyber warfare and cyberspace actually is, it keeps on evolving. States on the other hand have recognized the potential threat of cyber warfare a long time ago and are attempting to mend the existing legal void, however not successfully. The effects of their efforts are limited only to a small number of States. States who are not willing to give up their cyber capability would also stay clear from such international legislation. International treaties and State practice were analyzed in search of a way to accommodate cyber warfare under the current regime. The findings show that application of existing legal basis to cyber warfare is at best difficult and strained. The reality is that cyber warfare does not fit adequately under any of the legal umbrellas at the moment. Application of existing laws generates even more drawbacks than it in the end covers. There is potential for future development however. States are inclined to negotiate and, even as we speak, are attempting at creation of a cyber warfare regulating treaty. The thesis concludes that current international law is not adequate in order to be applicable to cyber warfare and even in areas where it can afford minimal protection, potential for abuse exists. The criteria and standards which were appropriate to conventional warfare and armed conflict are outdated. At least a global understanding on the terms used to define cyber warfare and related terms would be a good starting point. A universally accepted convention would be the perfect solution.

Cyber has been around for over a decade and yet we are still faces with a situation of a very weak or rather no regulation. This is being heavily influenced by our weak technological development and due to the nature of cyberspace and the Internet. Cyber warfare poses interesting questions for us. It is one of a kind type of warfare, the one we cannot see or feel, but it's impacts are instantaneous and potentially devastating. States and scholars agree on that. This thesis attempts to explore possibilities of application of existing international laws to amend this situation and answer the questions if it is adequate or at all possible. While scholars are still arguing about the basics of what cyber warfare and cyberspace actually is, it keeps on evolving. States on the other hand have recognized the potential threat of cyber warfare a long time ago and are attempting to mend the existing legal void, however not successfully. The effects of their efforts are limited only to a small number of States. States who are not willing to give up their cyber capability would also stay clear from such international legislation. International treaties and State practice were analyzed in search of a way to accommodate cyber warfare under the current regime. The findings show that application of existing legal basis to cyber warfare is at best difficult and strained. The reality is that cyber warfare does not fit adequately under any of the legal umbrellas at the moment. Application of existing laws generates even more drawbacks than it in the end covers. There is potential for future development however. States are inclined to negotiate and, even as we speak, are attempting at creation of a cyber warfare regulating treaty. The thesis concludes that current international law is not adequate in order to be applicable to cyber warfare and even in areas where it can afford minimal protection, potential for abuse exists. The criteria and standards which were appropriate to conventional warfare and armed conflict are outdated. At least a global understanding on the terms used to define cyber warfare and related terms would be a good starting point. A universally accepted convention would be the perfect solution.

There were at least four possible legal justifications for the use of force against Afghanistan: Chapter VII of the UN Charter, intervention by invitation, humanitarian intervention & self-defense. The United States relied solely on the last justification, with the choice having been based on considerations arising out of the interaction of international politics & international law. In pursuing a claim of self-defense, the US adopted a two-pronged legal strategy: it expanded the focus to include the Taliban; & it worked hard to secure widespread support in advance of military action. As a result, the right of self-defense now includes military responses against States that actively support or willingly harbor terrorist groups who have already attacked the responding State. The US may now be employing similar legal strategies in an effort to develop or extend a right of anticipatory self-defense against terrorist acts. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

In opposition to the process of integration at the European level, there is an increasing desire for independence within a number of European States such as in Catalonia's case. Catalans invoke the right to self-determination and argue that they have a right to secession according to international law and that the Spanish Constitution of 1978 does not contradict this right. This essay analyzes the conflict between the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination in international law and explores the challenge which the secessionist movements pose for the European Union.

The US administration's recent expansive interpretation of the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter requires a concurrent reassessment of the legal concepts of necessity & proportionality in the context of terror. Adapted from the source document.

Introduction : non-state actors, changing actors, and subjects of international law / Charles-Emmanuel Côté -- Sovereignty's accommodations : quasi-states as international lawmakers / Kathleen Claussen -- Quasi-States and sport : building a case for statehood / Ryan Gauthier -- Self-determination claimant groups and the creation of international norms / Amy Maguire -- Indigenous peoples as actors in international law-making : focusing on international environmental law / Yuko Osakada -- Legally sculpting a melting arctic : states, indigenous peoples and justice in multilateralism / Sabaa Ahmad Khan -- Legitimacy, participation, and international law-making : 'fixing' the restitution of cultural property to indigenous peoples / Shea Elizabeth Esterling -- Procedural barriers to indigenous peoples' participation in international lawmaking : extended continental shelf delimitation in Inuit Nunaat / Zhannah Voukitchevitch -- Non-state actors as invisible law makers? Domestic Implementation of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Standards / Mari Takeuchi -- Reorienting the role of nonstate actors in global climate governance / Jason MacLean -- The influence of the individual and the corporation on the state's exercise of jurisdiction under international law : the case of business and human rights arbitration / Sarah Castles -- Beyond the state : individual civil responsibility for violations of international law / Miriam Cohen -- Asymmetrical legal conflicts / Shiri Krebs -- Reconsidering the classification of extraterritorial conflict with armed groups in international humanitarian law / Shin Kawagishi -- The status of rebels in non-international armed conflict : do they have the right to life? / Kentaro Wani -- Non-state actors in international dispute settlement : the case of domestic investment statutes / Jarrod Hepburn.

Abstract
One of the most complex and uncertain areas of international legal doctrine concerns how to deal with the aspiration of a people to achieve self-determination through the establishment of a new state and the related claim to a specific territory over which statehood is to be exercised. Recently, when the General Assembly of the United Nations referred to the International Court of Justice the question of the legality of the declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanians, the Court was given an opportunity to clarify and develop the law on external self-determination. Instead, the Court answered extremely narrowly, confining its analysis to the legality of the act of declaration without determining any consideration of international legal norms applicable to the act of secession that was being proposed. This article intends to fill the gap left by the ICJ's decision: first by critiquing the inadequacy and tensions visible in the existing doctrine and second by examining how recent developments in international law may allow for a more normatively coherent approach to the problem.

A decision that deals with international disputes, be it arbitral or judicial, has to properly reflect objectivity and coherence with existing rules of international law. This paper shows the decision of the Ethio-Eritrea Claims Commission on the jus ad bellum case is bereft of objectivity and coherence, which contributed a disservice to international law on many aspects. The Commission's decision that holds Eritrea in contravention to Art 2(4) of the UN Charter based on Ethiopia's contention is flawed. It fails to consider: the illegitimacy of an actual authority established over contested territory through hostile acts, the proper determination of effectivites under international law, the sanctity of colonially determined boundaries, Ethiopia's prior firm political recognition and undergirds to respect colonial boundary, and Ethio-Eritrea Border Commission's decision. The paper will also argue that the Commission confused Eritrea's right of self-defense with the rule against the non-use of force to settle territorial disputes; wherefore its decision sanitizes or sterilizes unlawful change of territory resulted through unlawful use of force to the effect of advantaging aggressions. The paper likewise argues that the decision is so sacrilegious that it disregards the ossified legal finality of colonial boundaries. Moreover, its approach toward armed attack does not reflect the peculiarity of the jus ad bellum case rather it brings about definitional uncertainties and sustains the perception that the law on self-defense is unsettled.