Suchergebnisse

Is the right of self-defence (Art. 51 UN Charter), in equivalence to the prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2 No. 4 UN Charter), limited to forcible measures of counter-defence or can it also justify non-forcible measures (e.g. suspension of international treaties, confiscation of state assets), which in themselves violate international law? There is no such equivalence in the relationship between Article 51 and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. However, it is decisive for the justification of non-military measures of self-defence that all requirements of Art. 51 UN Charter are fulfilled. In this context, the term "indirect self-defence" expresses the fact that such measures must also be aimed at the purpose of defence. More precise requirements can be found, among others, in the ILC Draft Articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, the basic ideas of which can be applied to the suspension of other obligations under international law as well. If the requirements are observed, the aggressor state will not be put in a state of lawlessness, nor will the right of countermeasures or other international law be undermined. Nor does this make states participating in collective self-defence by non-military measures a party to the conflict. Rather, indirect self-defence expands the possibility of exerting direct pressure on the aggressor state, independent of countermeasures, as befits the dimension of violations of the prohibition on the use of force. At the same time, the veto rights of destructive powers in the Security Council run empty, because they must constructively form majorities in order to block measures of indirect self-defence.abstract en
Is the right of self-defence (Art. 51 UN Charter), in equivalence to the prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2 No. 4 UN Charter), limited to forcible measures of counter-defence or can it also justify non-forcible measures (e.g. suspension of international treaties, confiscation of state assets), which in themselves violate international law? There is no such equivalence in the relationship between Article 51 and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. However, it is decisive for the justification of non-military measures of self-defence that all requirements of Art. 51 UN Charter are fulfilled. In this context, the term "indirect self-defence" expresses the fact that such measures must also be aimed at the purpose of defence. More precise requirements can be found, among others, in the ILC Draft Articles on the effects of armed conflicts on treaties, the basic ideas of which can be applied to the suspension of other obligations under international law as well. If the requirements are observed, the aggressor state will not be put in a state of lawlessness, nor will the right of countermeasures or other international law be undermined. Nor does this make states participating in collective self-defence by non-military measures a party to the conflict. Rather, indirect self-defence expands the possibility of exerting direct pressure on the aggressor state, independent of countermeasures, as befits the dimension of violations of the prohibition on the use of force. At the same time, the veto rights of destructive powers in the Security Council run empty, because they must constructively form majorities in order to block measures of indirect self-defence.

Vom Sklavenwiderstand bis zum Jiu-Jitsu der Suffragetten, vom Aufstand im Warschauer Ghetto bis zu den Black Panther und den Queer-Patrouillen zeichnet Elsa Dorlin in ihrem preisgekrönten Buch eine Genealogie der politischen Selbstverteidigung nach. Diese Geschichte der Gewalt wirft ein neues Licht auf die Definition der modernen Subjektivität und die zeitgenössische Sicherheitspolitik. Sie führt zu einer Neuinterpretation der politischen Philosophie, in deren Rahmen Hobbes und Locke mit Frantz Fanon, Michel Foucault, Malcolm X, June Jordan und Judith Butler in ein faszinierendes Streitgespräch geraten.

Zs.fassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Self-defence and collective security