Suchergebnisse

Christian Tomuschat's (2006) discussion of Israel's military response to Hisbollah's hostage-taking of two Israeli soldiers in summer of 2006 provides background for addressing several issues pertaining to the interpretation of the right of states & nations to self defense within the framework of international law & Article 51 of the UN Charter. Tomuschat's view that only lawful military targets can be engaged when a state responds to an armed attack is supported, adding that armed hostage-taking can constitute an "armed attack," thus meeting the condition of Article 51 for a legitimate military action. It is argued, however, that the use of armed force in self-defense against nonstate actors is neither a "war" nor a "military conflict," as those terms are known under international law. Accordingly, the UK was not at war with the US in 1837, nor can the US be at war with al Qaeda now. It is stressed that regardless whether Israeli incursion into Lebanese territory to target nonstate actors met the definition of "war," it was bound by international law to limit civilian casualties through proper application of the principles of necessity & proportionality & to observe human rights, which are nonderogable regardless of a claimed necessity to violate them. Z. Dubiel

Introduction -- Chapter Once -- An overview of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Law and its historical changes -- Chapter Two -- An English translation of the Contemporary Japan SDF Law -- Chapter Three -- The official Japanese version of the Contemporary Japan SDF Law -- About the editors.

"Kurdistan is among the world's most notorious cases of self-determination denied, and why this outcome remains unachieved reveals as much about the biases of international law as it does about the merits of the case for Kurdistan. On the centenary of the Treaty of Lausanne, 24 July 1923, the last of the international instruments establishing the new international order after WWI, this book explores the potential blind spots of international law regarding its differential application in the Middle East. Tracing self-determination over the past century, the work explores how the law applies to Kurdish aspirations and to what extent the Kurds can rely upon the current law of self-determination to achieve internationally recognised statehood. The book offers an exhaustive historio-legal analysis of changing international legal concepts and geopolitical upheaval, providing a blueprint for Kurdish self-determination in international law. Shedding light on the law's structural biases, it represents a comprehensive historico-legal account of Kurdish aspirations to territorial independence within international law literature, offering a guide to relevant legal problems. It will be of interest to students and academics focused on international law, specifically, peoplehood, statehood, secession, human rights law, political science, and anthropology. Moreover, policymakers, government officials working in peace and conflict, research and advocacy institutes, think tanks as well as scholars of international relations, historians, political scientists, regional specialists, diplomats, and NGO activists will find it a useful reference. The book also illuminates the human rights status of the Kurds in their host states, making it relevant to scholars and activists. Its findings have implications extending beyond Kurdistan to self-determination struggles in Scotland, Catalonia, Ukraine, and elsewhere"--