Suchergebnisse

The "Caroline" incident – an 1837 raid by British Canadian militia across the Niagara River border to sink an American steamboat being used by Canadian insurgents – is well-known to many international lawyers. United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster's resulting correspondence with British representative Lord Ashburton is often cited today as a key authority on customary international self-defense standards. University of Ottawa professor Craig Forcese has produced a valuable new history and analysis of that event, its legal context, and its continuing influence: "Destroying the Caroline: The Frontier Raid that Reshaped the Right to War." As explained in this review, the book corrects some misunderstandings about the incident and shows its continuing relevance to contemporary international legal debates about military force. It also helps in understanding this period of U.S. foreign relations law, especially with regard to powers of war and peace.

The book examines the development of the right of self-defence in international law both as an introduction to the subject and as a critical consideration of its central themes and debates. Special emphasis is laid on the development since 9/11. The right of self-defence is analysed from the point of view of international and constitutional law as well as from the perspective of state practice. The key question the book attempts to answer is whether a state can lawfully invoke its right of self-defence to fight non-state actors. The book appeals to all international lawyers, academics, students, and practitioners, as well as those interested in politics and international relations. (Quelle: Text Verlagseinband / Verlag)

This fully updated fourth edition clearly and comprehensively explains the law on the use of force in international law, including use of force by States, the role of the UN, and the role of regional organisations in the maintenance of international peace and security

Self-defense is a universally accepted exception to the prohibition of the use of force in international law, and it has been subjected to careful academic scrutiny. The prohibition of the threat of force, although equally important in terms of its normative status to the prohibition on use, has attracted far less academic commentary to date. This Article examines the relationship between the two prohibitions--of the use and threat of force--and considers the largely unexplored possibility of states utilizing a threat of force as a means of lawful defensive response: self-defense in the form of a threat. The status of this concept under international law is assessed, and the criteria that may regulate it are analyzed. This Article is based on an analogy between traditional "forcible" self-defense and the notion of threats made in self-defense. However, one cannot automatically apply the well-established rules of self-defense to a defensive threat, largely because of the practical differences between a threatened response and a response involving actual force.

The right of States to use force extraterritorially is conditioned by requirements of necessity and proportionality. This book provides a detailed analysis of those requirements, and a coherent and up-to-date account of the applicable contemporary international law in this field.

1. Introduction -- Part I. Pre-Charter customary law on self-defence: 2. Self-defence in ancient and medieval natural law -- 3. Self-defence as a measure short of war -- 4. Self-defence as an exception to the prohibition of war -- 5. The right of self-defence and the drafting of the UN Charter -- 6. The temporal dimension of self-defence at the time of the Charter -- Part II. Post-Charter customary law on self-defence: 7. The right of self-defence in the judgments of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals -- 8. Self-defence in state-to-state conflicts -- 9. Self-defence and weapons of mass destruction -- 10. Self-defence against non-state actors -- 11. The interpretation of self-defence and the United Nations -- 12. The temporal dimension of post-Charter self-defence -- Part III. Anticipatory action in self-defence and international customary law: 13. The legality of anticipatory action in self-defence -- 14. The limits of anticipatory action in self-defence

International Law and New Wars examines how international law fails to address the contemporary experience of what are known as 'new wars' - instances of armed conflict and violence in places such as Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. International law, largely constructed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, rests to a great extent on the outmoded concept of war drawn from European experience - inter-state clashes involving battles between regular and identifiable armed forces. The book shows how different approaches are associated with different interpretations of international law, and, in some cases, this has dangerously weakened the legal restraints on war established after 1945. It puts forward a practical case for what it defines as second generation human security and the implications this carries for international law

Who was to blame and why it matters -- The Syrian connection -- Egypt flexes its muscle -- Historical opportunity for Israel -- Britain has a plan -- Southern passage: Aqaba as cause for war -- "The Americans will not sit shiva" -- How to attack: "we have to be the victims" -- Turkey shoot -- Cover-up in the Security Council -- Security Council "in the dark" -- Cover-up in the General Assembly -- How to read the silence on aggression -- The experts fall in line -- No threat? No matter -- War by mistake -- Defending in advance -- A new doctrine of preventive war -- Permanent takeover? -- Blocking the path to peace

Das Konzept der preemptive self-defense wurde erstmals im Rahmen der National Security Strategy der Bush-Administration im Jahr 2002 postuliert. Nach diesem sind militärische Maßnahmen bei einer Bedrohung durch internationale Terrororganisationen oder einem sogenannten Schurkenstaat mit Massenvernichtungswaffen, selbst wenn noch Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich Ort und Zeit des anzunehmenden Angriffs bestehen, vom völkerrechtlichen Selbstverteidigungsrecht gedeckt. Im Rahmen der Debatte um den Irakkrieg im Jahr 2003 wurde das Konzept der preemptive self-defense fälschlicherweise als Rechtfertigungsgrundlage für die Invasion des Iraks diskutiert und weitgehend als mit dem Völkerrecht unvereinbar abgelehnt. Christian Richter weist in seiner Untersuchung nach, dass das Konzept der preemptive self-defense an sich durchaus mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar ist. Dies geschieht anhand einer grundlegenden Prüfung des Art. 51 UN-Charta, des Völkergewohnheitsrechts und der Staatenpraxis. Vor dem Hintergrund des massiven Erstarkens des internationalen Terrorismus und der jüngsten Atomwaffentests Nordkoreas im September 2016 gewinnt das Konzept der preemptive self-defense wieder an Bedeutung. »Preemptive Self-Defense – The Compatibility of the Concept of Preemptive Self-Defense with Public International Law« For the first time the concept of preemptive self-defense was promulgated in the National Security Strategy 2002. According to this concept the use of force against so-called rogue states or international terror organizations is consistent with the law of self-defense when there are uncertainties concerning the place and time of the assumed attack, especially in the case of an actual threat involving weapons of mass destruction. Within the debate concerning the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the concept of preemptive self-defense was mistakenly discussed as a justification, and widely assessed as incompatible with public international law. Given the growing intensity of international terror organizations in the Middle East, as well as the latest North Korean nuclear weapon tests in September 2016, the concept of preemptive self-defense is of increasing importance. By analyzing Article 51 UN-Charta, the customary international law, as well as state practice, Christian Richter demonstrates that the concept of preemptive self-defense is in fact compatible with public international law. Das Konzept der preemptive self-defense wurde erstmals in der National Security Strategy 2002 postuliert. Nach diesem sind militärische Maßnahmen bei einer Bedrohung durch internationale Terrororganisationen oder einem sogenannten Schurkenstaat mit Massenvernichtungswaffen, selbst wenn noch Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich Ort und Zeit des anzunehmenden Angriffs bestehen, vom völkerrechtlichen Selbstverteidigungsrecht gedeckt. Im Rahmen der Debatte um den Irakkrieg wurde das Konzept der preemptive self-defense fälschlicherweise als Rechtfertigungsgrundlage diskutiert und als mit dem Völkerrecht unvereinbar abgelehnt. Christian Richter weist in seiner Untersuchung des Art. 51 UN-Charta, des Völkergewohnheitsrechts und der Staatenpraxis nach, dass das Konzept der preemptive self-defense an sich mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar ist. Studium der Rechtswissenschaften sowie der Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie in Passau. Referendariat in Frankfurt am Main und Hamburg. Auslandsaufenthalte in Orléans (Frankreich), Washington D.C. (USA) und Philadelphia (USA). Promotion an der Johannes Kepler Universität Linz. Rechtsanwalt in einer auf internationales Wirtschaftsrecht spezialisierten Kanzlei in Hamburg. Dozent für Völkerrecht, Staatsrecht und Rechtsphilosophie an der Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr in Hamburg.

Das Konzept der Preemptive self-defense wurde erstmals im Rahmen der National Security Strategy der Bush-Administration im Jahr 2002 postuliert. Nach diesem sind militärische Maßnahmen bei einer Bedrohung durch internationale Terrororganisationen oder einem sogenannten Schurkenstaat mit Massenvernichtungswaffen, selbst wenn noch Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich Ort und Zeit des anzunehmenden Angriffs bestehen, vom völkerrechtlichen Selbstverteidigungsrecht gedeckt. Im Rahmen der Debatte um den Irakkrieg im Jahr 2003 wurde das Konzept der Preemptive self-defense fälschlicherweise als Rechtfertigungsgrundlage für die Invasion des Iraks diskutiert und weitgehend als mit dem Völkerrecht unvereinbar abgelehnt. Christian Richter weist in seiner Untersuchung nach, dass das Konzept der Preemptive self-defense an sich durchaus mit dem Völkerrecht vereinbar ist. Dies geschieht anhand einer grundlegenden Prüfung des Art. 51 UN-Charta, des Völkergewohnheitsrechts und der Staatenpraxis. Vor dem Hintergrund des massiven Erstarkens des internationalen Terrorismus und der jüngsten Atomwaffentests Nordkoreas im September 2016 gewinnt das Konzept der Preemptive self-defense wieder an Bedeutung. / »Preemptive Self-Defense – The Compatibility of the Concept of Preemptive Self-Defense with Public International Law« -- For the first time the concept of preemptive self-defense was promulgated in the National Security Strategy 2002. According to this concept the use of force against so-called rogue states or international terror organizations is consistent with the law of self-defense when there are uncertainties concerning the place and time of the assumed attack, especially in the case of an actual threat involving weapons of mass destruction. -- Within the debate concerning the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the concept of preemptive self-defense was mistakenly discussed as a justification, and widely assessed as incompatible with public international law. Given the growing intensity of international terror organizations in the Middle East, as well as the latest North Korean nuclear weapon tests in September 2016, the concept of preemptive self-defense is of increasing importance. By analyzing Article 51 UN-Charta, the customary international law, as well as state practice, Christian Richter demonstrates that the concept of preemptive self-defense is in fact compatible with public international law