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.

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.

Use of force is one of the principles of international law which has been banned by the UN Charter and modern constitutions. However, since the enforcement of the UN Charter, self-defense has become the preferred excuse for states to justify their use of force. But applying self-defense requires some conditions. Immediacy is one of the important conditions of self-defense. Immediacy defined as the time span between armed attacks and reaction to it, is the main discourse. This condition requires self defense immediately after the armed conflict or during a rational time span since its occurance.In this respect, the emerging Karabakh Conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the 1990s is important. After Armenia's armed attacks, Azerbaijan has acted within the scope of legitimate self-defense. But in accordance with UN Security Council cease-fire resolution Azerbaijan has suspended its self-defense actions. However, today, still twenty percent of Azerbaijani territory is still under Armenian occupation. Accordingly, after a long time the validity of Azerbaijan's right to legitimate self-defense is still subject to arguments.In this article, by comparing two different approaches (strict and board interpretation approaches) on the temporal link between the measures of self-defense and the armed attacks (immediacy), the temporal link between the self-defense countermeasures of Azerbaijan and armed attacks by Armenia in Karabakh Conflict will be examined.

In this Article, Professor Beres discusses certain political tensions in the Middle East and the appropriateness of preemptive military action by Israel. He concludes that the ongoing hostilities and threatening overtures by Israel's enemies could give Israel sufficient basis pursuant to international law to conduct preemptive strikes. Upon reaching this conclusion, Professor Beres considers the level of force Israel should employ in various preemptive or counter retaliation scenarios. While the degree of preemption is debatable, the author believes that the preservation of Israel may require some preemptive action in the near future.

While the United States and Japan share many values, their legal systems take distinct approaches to authorizing military operations. But the two approaches converge within the alliance structure—especially important with regard to implementing the international law of self-defense.

This paper presents a detailed analysis of legal self-defense as a complex legal category and is in demand not only at the modern stage of existence of state-organized civilizations but also in the past. Essential parameters of self-defense are studied due to which self-defense is characterized as scientific construction, subjective right, legal activity, form of protection of violated right, special legal measure, and complex legal institution. Such multi aspect characteristics of self-defense require close attention in order to increase efficiency of further application (from theory to normative consolidation and practical implementation). Tendencies in normative regulation of self-defense beginning from savagery (Talion principles) through the Middle Ages, in bourgeois states and up the present time are depicted. The author compares the limits of self-defense that were established during various historical epochs. For example, primitive self-defense is acknowledged as the most inhuman and violent. It is associated with group interests of a tribal community. In the Middle Ages the limits were established considering self-defense application by sole discretion of the subject, that was why the state began to ask for help third parties and official mediators to act between the person and the state. Moreover the sphere of self-defense here is getting narrow here to prevent unrestrained arbitrary actions. During bourgeois epoch legal regulation of self-defense was much politicized. Its implementation was connected for example with the right to participate in public manifestation, submit a petition etc. Today to some extent the international documents and the Russian legislation regulate it. However, regulation of self-defense is fragmented, so it is necessary to adopt a special act concerning self-defense. ; peer-reviewed

The subject of this paper is one of the most important criminal law institutes. The purpose of this institute together with its effect on perpetrator of a crime points out the significance of self-defense within contemporary legislation. It is well known that self-defense protects the law against non-law, that is, protects legal property of the attacked person against unlawful attack. Although our legal practice researches showed that generally we can speak of protection of the most important properties of every human: life, physical integrity, and property. Moreover, unlawful attack violates legal system, while the use of self-defense contributes to its reestablishing. But, did the legislator want to provide protection exclusively to the attacked person or legal system, without taking into account the interest of the perpetrator? Italian criminal legislation belongs to the group of countries that classify self-defense as reasons which exclude punishment, while the criminal law literature in this country accepts so called dualistic conception of self-defense. ; Tema ovog rada je nesumnjivo jedan od najvažnijih instituta krivičnog prava. Na značaj nužne odbrane u savremenim zakonodavstvima, teoriji i sudskoj praksi ukazuje svrha primene ovog instituta i dejstvo u odnosu na učinioca krivičnog dela. Dobro je poznato da se nužnom odbranom štiti pravo od neprava, tj. štite pravna dobra napadnutog lica od protivpravnog napada. Naša istraživanja sudske prakse su pokazala da se najčešće može govoriti o zaštiti najznačajnijih dobara svakog čoveka: života, telesnog integriteta i imovine. Štaviše, preduzimanjem protivpravnog napada narušava se pravni poredak, dok primena nužne odbrane doprinosi njegovom ponovnom uspostavljanju. Ali, da li je zakonodavac želeo da obezbedi zaštitu isključivo napadnutom i pravnom poretku, zanemarujući interese napadača? Italijansko krivično zakonodavstvo pripada grupi zemalja koje nužnu odbranu svrstavaju u osnove koji isključuju kažnjivost, dok krivičnopravna literatura u ovoj zemlji prihvata tzv. dualističko shvatanje nužne odbrane.

The United Nations, the United States, and other interested governments have sought to minimize the proliferation of nuclear weapons. North Korea's apparent attempts to begin production of nuclear materials clearly undermine the goal of non-proliferation. Moreover, the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean peninsula, a site of continued political and military tension, has added a threat of potential nuclear conflict. This Article investigates the history of the Korean crisis and places North Korea's attempt to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the context of the international non-proliferation regime and policy. The author then examines the present collective security system and the evolution of the concept of self-defense in international law, concluding that the traditional concept of self-defense is inadequate to deal with the problem presented by a nuclear threat. In response to this crisis, the author suggests that the United States first pursue a peaceful, diplomatic solution. Economic sanctions, imposed both by the United Nations and by the United States unilaterally, are the next proposed route. As a last resort, the author proposes that the United States should respond to North Korean hostilities by increasing its military presence in the Western Pacific and by executing a preventive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities.

Spanish criminal legislation belongs to the group of countries that classify self-defense as reasons which exclude criminal liability, while the criminal law literature in this country accepts so called dualistic conception of self-defense, although there is no unique attitude on the legal nature of this institute. It is very interesting that the legal practice, in spite of basic theory conception that any legal property can represent the object of attack, in a number of cases is rejecting the possibility for perpetrator to cite self-defense for violation of honor. There is a governing attitude that it is not relevant for the existence of attack as a condition for applying the Article 20. p. 4 of the Criminal Code of Spain the circumstance whether the action of the aggressor has been executed with the guilt. When it comes to unlawfulness of the attack, some authors support the attitude that very individual criminal unlawfulness of the aggressor's action can be discussed. Big part of the work was devoted to provoked defense, that is, 'absence of enough provocation by the victim'. Related to condition of simultaneousness of attack and defense, we did not accept the conception according to which in some cases it is acceptable to violate or endanger legal properties of the aggressor after termination of the attack. Further, the condition of defense necessity depends in big part on establishing 'the necessity of rational use of means for the effect of preventing or rejecting the attack' (Article 20. p. 4 of the Criminal Code of Spain). At the end, although legislator in Spain does not explicitly require so called defense mood as a condition for excluding criminal liability, there is a unique conception of both theory and practice on necessity of existence of the self-defense subjective element. ; Špansko krivično zakonodavstvo pripada grupi zemalja koje nužnu odbranu svrstavaju u osnove koji isključuju krivičnu odgovornost, dok krivičnopravna literatura u ovoj zemlji prihvata tzv. dualističko shvatanje nužne odbrane, iako o pravnoj prirodi ovog instituta ne postoji jedinstveno mišljenje. Interesantno je da sudska praksa uprkos načelnom stanovištu teorije da svako pravno dobro može biti objekt napada, u velikom broju slučajeva odbacuje mogućnost da se zbog povrede časti učinilac pozove na nužnu odbranu. Preovladava mišljenje, prema kome za postojanje napada kao uslova za primenu člana 20. stav 4 Krivičnog zakonika Španije, nema značaja okolnost da li je radnja napadača preduzeta sa krivicom. U pogledu protivpravnosti napada, pojedini autori zastupaju stav da se može govoriti o posebnoj krivičnoj protivpravnosti radnje koju preduzima napadač. Veliki deo rada posvećen je isprovociranoj odbrani, tj. 'izostanku dovoljne provokacije od strane napadnutog'. U vezi sa uslovom istovremenosti napada i odbrane, nismo prihvatili stanovište prema kome je u pojedinim slučajevima dozvoljeno povrediti ili ugroziti pravna dobra napadača posle okončanja napada. Dalje, uslov neophodnosti odbrane u velikoj meri zavisi od utvrđivanja 'neophodnosti racionalne upotrebe sredstava radi sprečavanja ili odbijanja napada' (član 20. stav 4 Krivičnog zakonika Španije). Na kraju, iako zakonodavac u Španiji ne zahteva izričito tzv. odbrambenu volju kao uslov za isključenje krivične odgovornosti, jedinstveno je mišljenje teorije i prakse o neophodnosti postojanja subjektivnog elementa nužne odbrane.

This article examines to what extent States' right to self-defence should be applied in the outer space. The concept of self-defence within international regulations remains debatable. Brought by the existing reality in international system, this article analyses and suggests in further details that the act of States' right for self-defence should be limited to the act of militarization and not weaponization in the outer space. The argument in this article is carried by the perspective of realism that argues the structure of international system as an anarchy in which states are naturally competing one and another for the purpose of power due to the effect of living within power stratification. Consequently, if states are allowed to exercise their right to self-defence without any limitation, the context of selfdefence becomes broader and will constitute a threat towards international peace and security. Therefore, the right of states to self-defence should be limited within the context of outer space to support only military purpose without any form space-to-space, space-to-earth, or earth-to-space weapons.

Developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship in recent years have marked a change in nature of the Australia-Japan relationship. The two countries have never been so involved in matters of security, partly due to memories of Japan's actions in World War II (WWII) and the emphasis on trade relations during the Cold War. It was not until the end of the Cold War did the strategic relationship start to make progress outside intelligence cooperation. The major factor explaining for the post-Cold War development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship was the move by Japan to make an 'international contribution' that reflected its status as the second largest economy. The actives that could be conducted by the Japanese Self-Defense Force (JSDF) had been and continue to be constrained due to the incorporation of Article 9 in the Japanese Constitution. Established during the American-led occupation of Japan following the end of WWII, the purpose of Article 9 was to take away Japan's ability to wage war. This had the effect of greatly restricting Japan's ability to be involved in any operation not directly related to the defence of Japan, meaning that JSDF involvement in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (UNPKO) was not possible. However, following the first Gulf War, the establishment on the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Law (UNPKO Law) in 1992, allowed for the deployment of the JSDF to UNPKO and disaster relief operations. It was this move by Japan that resulted in an increase in the number of times the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the JSDF operated together in the same theatre. ADF-JSDF cooperation in UNPKO such as in Cambodia and East Timor, as well as in coalitions such as the one in Iraq is widely recognised as being significant for development of the Australia-Japan strategic relationship. Increased instances of ADF-JSDF cooperation on the ground has been reflected in a greater number of Australia-Japan security agreements that have been established in an attempt to formalise the strategic relationship. The 2007 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation signed by the Howard and Abe governments was important as it established a framework for closer security cooperation and marked the first time Japan had entered into a security agreement with any country other than the United States (US). By formalising the Australia-Japan strategic relationship through the 2007 Joint Declaration, a link between Australia and Japan was made within the context of their respective alliances with the US. This link resulted in the view that a trilateral strategic relationship between Australia, Japan and the US was in development, and could result in an alliance. Additionally, moves by Japan in particular, to involve democratic value-sharing countries in a strategic relationship that included India had the consequence of making the purpose of the 2007 Joint Declaration a means to contain China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region. It was not until the Rudd Government came into power in late 2007 did the Australia-Japan strategic relationship become refined. The 2008 Memorandum on Defence Cooperation set the agenda for future ADF-JSDF collaboration in international peace cooperation activities. According to the Memorandum, the ADF-JSDF collaboration was to progress in four areas: peacekeeping operations; disaster relief; combating international terrorism; and in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). This agenda reflected past ADF-JSDF collaboration and demonstrated an understanding that such collaboration was most meaningful and practical in operations of low intensity. Subsequent developments in the Australia-Japan strategic relationship have supported this move. The 2010 Australia-Japan Acquisition and Cross- Servicing Agreement (ACSA), which allows for the exchange of goods and services during joint training exercises, is one such development. In addition to military exchanges and joint training exercises, the ACSA is a means to enhance the interoperability between the ADF and JSDF, allowing for closer cooperation in operations. There is much potential in the ACSA to iron out some of the gaps in the capabilities between the two forces, in part due to the constraints placed on the JSDF by Article 9. Although the ACSA has not been applied as of yet, possibilities lie in the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT). It is in the direction of practical collaboration in international peace cooperation activities that the ADF-JSDF will continue to develop.

Over 25 years have passed since the defeat and unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan in August 1945. During the intervening years she has been rebuilt into an economic superpower, but, unlike other superpowers, one rejecting military force as a means of foreign policy. Much of this reluctance to rearm has been based on the ability of Japan to rely on the United States-Japan Security Treaty to deter direct external aggression.

This article examines the most pertinent questions relating to the applicability of the right of self-defense to attacks conducted by non-State armed groups (NSAGs) acting independently of State control from the territory of one or more States against the territory of another State. These questions are approached from the perspective of legality (does the right of self-defense apply to attacks not mounted by or under the control of a State) and modality (assuming the applicability of self-defense to such attacks; how do the principles of necessity, proportionality and immediacy affect its application)? Starting with an assessment of the place of self-defense in international law at the time the U.N. Charter was adopted, it proceeds with an examination of State practice before and after the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks triggered not only increased reliance upon self-defense in relation to attacks by NSAGs, but also an ongoing debate to which this article is intended as a constructive contribution. After concluding that there is substantial and increasing, albeit not universal support for the applicability of self-defense to attacks by NSAGs, the modality of its application is discussed. In that context, the principle of necessity in the context of self-defense is presented as being of paramount importance in answering the question of under which circumstances self-defense against NSAGs can be exercised on the territory of another State and how such action relates to the rights of the State where the NSAG is located and conducting operations from.

S/N 008-020-00848-6 ; Includes bibliographical references. ; 1. The inconsequence of superpower war -- 2. Quarantine -- 3. The quagmire of self-defense. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Recent mass shootings have led to renewed calls for additional legislation at the state and federal levels to address gun access and control. In this hard-hitting compilation, experts delve into various aspects of firearms in America—from gun control and gun rights to militia movements, to school-related shootings, and to the recent trends in gun ownership by women. Third of three volumes this volume considers popular debates about firearm policy, including concealed carry of firearms, terrorism and the ownership of firearms, background checks for purchasing guns, and stand-your-ground laws. Authors from varied backgrounds and viewpoints share their perspectives on the pros and cons of firearm ownership considering all of the following: a constitutional right, a key instrument of self-defense, a guarantee of political freedoms, and as a major factor in crime and personal injury.