Self-defense against the use of force in international law
In: Developments in international law 23
1613699 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Developments in international law 23
In: The Department of State bulletin: the official weekly record of United States Foreign Policy, Band 56, S. 54-63
ISSN: 0041-7610
In: The Iranian journal of international affairs, Band 7, S. 119-155
ISSN: 1016-6130
World Affairs Online
In: Developments in International Law 23
In: International Law - Book Archive pre-2000
In: Oxford Monographs in International Law Ser.
The right of States to use force extraterritorially is conditioned by requirements of necessity and proportionality. This book provides a much-needed detailed analysis of those requirements, and a coherent and up-to-date account of the applicable contemporary international law in this field.
In: Studies in international law v. 25
In: Studies in International Law Ser.
While an abundance of literature covers the right of states to defend themselves against external aggression, this work is dedicated to the right to personal self-defense in international law. Drawing on his extensive experience as a human rights practitioner and scholar, Dr Hessbruegge sets out, in careful detail, the strict requirements that human rights impose on defensive force by law enforcement authorities, especially police killings in self-defense. The text also discusses the exceptional application of the right to personal self-defense in military-led operations, notably to contain violent civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities
While an abundance of literature covers the right of states to defend themselves against external aggression, this work is dedicated to the right to personal self-defense in international law. Drawing on his extensive experience as a human rights practitioner and scholar, Dr Hessbruegge sets out, in careful detail, the strict requirements that human rights impose on defensive force by law enforcement authorities, especially police killings in self-defense. The text also discusses the exceptional application of the right to personal self-defense in military-led operations, notably to contain violent civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities
Introduction -- The right to personal self-defense as a general principle of law -- A human right to self-defense? -- Defensive force by law enforcement agents -- Personal self-defense in military-led operations -- Human rights standards for self-defense between private persons -- Self-defense against the state - resistance against human rights violations -- The right to personal self-defense in a rechtsstaat - final reflections
In: Studies in international law v. 25
Introduction --The criterion of an armed attack in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice --The criteria of necessity and proportionality --The trouble with armed attack and the merged conceptions of self-defence --A proposal for redefining armed attack --The ICJ : roles and restrictions --Conclusion.
In: Studies in international law 25
1. The doctrine of self-defence and its limits in criminal law -- 2. The laws of war and the roots of international self-defence -- 3. From sovereignty to unilateralism : a critique of the preventive war doctrine -- 4. The role and rationale of the imminence requirement in national and international law -- 5. Conclusions.
In: Ethics & international affairs, Band 18, Heft 1, S. 87-91
ISSN: 0892-6794
Part of a symposium on David Rodin's War and Self-Defense (New York: Oxford U Press, 2003) argues the despite some laudable achievements, his rejection of a plausible version of national self-defense fails. His conclusions ultimately do not hold up because of two transitions in his arguments: the move from individual to national self-defense & from the absence of world government to the illegitimacy of self-help. Focus is on liberal arguments for self-defense, whereby self-defense is the protection of vital rights or interests of individuals. Asserting that Rodin is right in rebuffing efforts to reduce self-defense to a collection of individual rights of self-defense, it is suggested that permissibility to kill in a defensive war can be rooted in a richer form of liberalism that he overlooked: self-defense wars are carried out by governments as agents of the citizens. Rodin's two reasons for rejecting the liberal view -- that it is wrong to consider humanitarian intervention & self-defense as having the same underlying rationale & use of force against a bloodless invasion is not warranted -- are countered. While Rodin sees that much of what is deemed self-defense is really law enforcement, he fails to connect the idea to the international system, which, although regulated by laws, lacks a superior authority to enforce them. Rodin asserts that under these circumstances, self-help is never justified, which is seen here as implausible. Further, Rodin's notion of proportionality means a state is not justified to defend against an invader looking to destroy the political system as opposed to the peoples; this is patently rejected. It is concluded that Rodin takes the analogy between individual & national self-defense too seriously. J. Zendejas