Based on author's thesis (doctoral - European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany, 2016) isued under title: The right to personal self-defence as a general principle of law and its general application in international human rights law.
Bowett, D.W.Self-Defence in International Law. New York: Praeger, . xv, 294 pp. Reprinted 2009 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. ISBN-13: 978-1-58477-855-4. ISBN-10: 1-58477-855-5. Cloth. $95.* Bowett observes that the use or threat of force by any state can be a delict, an approved sanction, or a measure taken in self-defense. He examines the evolution of the doctrine in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, with the assumption of the existence of a state's unlimited 'right' to go to war. He then attempts to outline the limited and provisional effects of this right under the U.N. Charter. "Throughout the work there is a refusal to dogmatize or to state in absolute terms any aspect of the 'privilege' of self-defence in its present context. (...) [Bowett] is to be congratulated on producing a timely and scholarly survey of one of the most fundamental, and often abused, sovereign rights known to international law.": K.R. Simmonds, British Year Book of International Law 34 (1958) 432.
Iz vsebine: 1. Samoobramba v obdobju pred Ligo narodov, 2. Dogovor Lige narodov, 3. Pariška pogodba, 4. 51. člen Listine Združenih narodov, 5. Individualna samoobramba, 6. Praksa kolektivne samoobrambe (s strani tretje države, regionalne organizacije, skupine držav s popolno odobritvijo Združenih narodov), sklepi: samoobramba kot poglavitna sestavina kolektivnega varnostnega sistema in kot oblika dela za pospeševanje mednarodnega miru.
The book examines in detail one of the most controversial topic in current international law, namely the scope and extent of the right of individual self-defense. The book carefully traces the paths which have been followed in the developing legal debate on self-defense. The author uses numerous case-studies of incidents involving the use of force in alleged self-defense (such as the Entebbe Incident 1976, the Nicaragua Case 1986 or the Israeli-Lebanese conflict of 2006) which have formed the central point of scholarly debate. The author's conclusions are based not only on thorough analysis of academic discussions but also of the practice of States and international bodies, especially of the United Nations Organization. At the outset of the book the author reviews the historical context and the customary evolution of the right of self-defense. Reference is made to the famous Caroline Case of 1837, which set the necessary conditions of lawful exercise of self-defense. Next, the author examines the concept and legal nature of self-defense, carefully assessing the customary conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy derived from the Caroline Case. As the occurrence of an "armed attack" is a conditio sine qua non of lawful invocation of self-defense, several modalities of an armed attack are attentively evaluated such as its constituent elements, beginning or scale. The author explores, whether reactions to acts of international terrorism committed by a non-State may be based on the right of self-defense. In times of global terrorist networks it is highly desirable to attach special attention to use of force in self-defense as a remedy against serious acts of terrorism. Thorough analysis of State practice is shown on several examples from recent history - the U.S. air raid on Libya in 1986 and on Baghdad in 1993 and relatively recent air strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Reference is also made to the most striking example - the Al-Qaeda attack on the United States in 2001. The validity of claims of anticipatory/preventive self-defense is examined on a theoretical level and then applied to the specific details of the Israeli air strike on the Osiraq Nuclear Reactor in 1981. The two main approaches to preventive self-defense - "restrictive" and "traditional" - are then discussed in detail. Brief analysis is also devoted to the nature of the so-called - pre-emptive - self-defense indicating its current position under international law.
From the Caroline Incident to the United Nations Charter
Author: Tadashi Mori
This book defines the right of self-defence as understood in and before 1945 and offers a possible better alternative for interpreting the significance of the precondition provided for in the Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
The book argues that the concept of self-defense in Islamic and International law is compatible. Al-Qaeda's declaration of Jihad does not meet the Islamic legal test. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq does meet the international legal test.
The legal rules governing the use of force between States are one of the most fundamental, and the most controversial, aspects of international law. An essential part of this subject is the question of when, and to what extent, a State may lawfully use force against another in self-defence. However, the parameters of this inherent right remain obscure, despite the best efforts of scholars and, notably, the International Court of Justice. This book examines the burgeoning relationship between the ICJ and the right of self-defence. Since 2003 there have been three major decisions of the ICJ that have dealt directly with the law governing self-defence actions, in contrast to only two such cases in the preceding fifty years. This, then, is an opportune moment to reconsider the jurisprudence of the Court on this issue. This book is the first of its kind to comprehensively draw together and then assess the merits of this jurisprudence. It argues that the contribution of the ICJ has been confused and unhelpful, and compounds inadequacies in existing customary international law. The ICJ's fundamental conception of a primary criterion of 'armed attack' as constituting a qualitatively grave use of force is brought into question. The book then goes on to examine the underlying causes of the problems that have emerged in the jurisprudence on this crucial issue. Winner of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009 Dr Green's monograph demonstrates a thorough understanding of the law of self-defence, coupled with an informed and evaluative discussion of the role and function of the International Court. It is an impressive analysis of the International Court of Justice's jurisprudence on self-defence. Professor Iain Scobbie, Judge of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009, Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, London James Green's "The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law" usefully draws together the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice on the international law governing self-defence. The work could not be more timely in light of both contemporary State practice and the Court's recent controversial judgements on the topic. Of particular note is his analysis of the very complex, and as yet unsettled, notion of "armed attack." Professor Michael Schmitt, Chairman of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize Committee, Chair of Public International Law, Durham University Winner of the University of Reading Faculty of Social Sciences outputs prize for the best research output in 2010.
Determining the earliest point in time at which international law authorises a state to exercise its inherent right of self-defence is an issue which has been debated, but unsatisfactorily reasoned, by scholars and states since the 1960’s. Yet it remains arguably the most pressing question of law that faces the international community. This book unravels the legal and factual complications which have obscured the answer to this question. In contrast to most other works, it takes an historic approach by tracing the evolution of the rights, rules and principles of international law which have governed the use of force by states since the 16th century. Its emphasis on self-defence provides the reader with a new and complete understanding of how and why the international legal framework limits defensive force to repelling an imminent threat or use of offensive force which is directed at the territory of a state. Taking an historic approach enables this book to resurrect an understanding of the human defensive instinct which has guided the formation of the international law of self-defence. It also explains the true legal nature and scope of the inherent right of self-defence, of anticipatory self-defence and provides a definition of the legal commencement of an armed attack for the purpose of Article 51 of the Charter. Finally, the reader will receive a unique source of research materials and analysis of state practice and of scholarly works concerning self-defence and the use of force since the 16th century, which is suitable for all readers of international law around the world.
English summary: Georg Jellinek's System of Subjective Public Rights is a classic of constitutional law which continues to influence the historical development, the dogmatic structure and the political issues in our understanding of administration and the constitution today. German description: Georg Jellineks aSystem der subjektiven offentlichen Rechte (1892/1905) ist ein Klassiker der Staatsrechtslehre, der die historische Entwicklung, die dogmatische Kontur und die politischen Fragen unseres Verwaltungs- und Verfassungsverstandnisses bis heute pragt. Jellinek entfaltet seine Theorie des subjektiven offentlichen Rechts aus dem Grundverhaltnis zwischen Burgern und Staat. Dieses staatsburgerliche Rechtsverhaltnis bildet Jellinek in vier Typen subjektiv-offentlicher Rechte ab: dem status passivus als den Pflichten, dem status negativus als der Freiheit, dem status positivus als den Leistungsanspruchen und dem status activus als den Partizipationsrechten der Burger. Mit diesen vier Kategorien von subjektiven offentlichen Rechten polarisiert Jellinek das gesamte Verwaltungs-, Verfassungs- und Volkerrecht und legt damit zugleich das Fundament, das auch die aktuelle Grundrechtstheorie noch tragt.
Shah argues that the concept of self-defense in Islamic and International law is compatible. Al-Qaeda’s declaration of Jihad does not meet the Islamic legal test. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq does not meet the international legal test. Dr Shah examines those causes attributed to Islam and non-Islamic causes of terrorism and argues that the theory of ‘reactive terror’ provides the most plausible explanation for so-called Islamic terrorism. The nature of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq is changing and Muslim leaders (not including Al-Qaeda or pro Anglo-American governments) may, by consensus, declare Jihad if the occupying forces do not withdraw. Such declaration would be according to Islamic and international law.
The legality of preemptive strikes is one of the most controversial questions of contemporary international law. At the core of this controversy stands the temporal dimension of self-defence: when and for how long can a state defend itself against an armed attack? Can it resort to armed force before such an attack occurs? Is anticipatory action covered by the rules of self-defence or should it be treated as a different concept? This book examines whether anticipatory action in self-defence is part of customary international law and, if so, under what conditions. The pre-Charter concept of anticipatory action is demarcated and then assessed against post-Charter state practice. Several instances of self-defence – both anticipatory and remedial – are examined to elucidate the rules governing the temporal dimension of the right. The Six-Day War (1967), the Israeli bombing of an Iraqi reactor (1981), the US invasion of Iraq (2003) and other instances of state practice are given thorough attention.
This book explores the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law. It examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the increasing role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter framework is under challenge. Russia's invasion of Georgia and intervention in Ukraine, the USA's military operations in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's campaign to restore the government of Yemen by force all raise questions about the law on intervention. The 'war on terror' that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA has not been won. It has spread far beyond Afghanistan: it has led to targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and to intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Is there an expanding right of self-defence against non-state actors? Is the use of force effective? The development of nuclear weapons by North Korea has reignited discussion about the legality of pre-emptive self-defence. The NATO-led operation in Libya increased hopes for the implementation of 'responsibility to protect', but it also provoked criticism for exceeding the Security Council's authorization of force because its outcome was regime change. UN peacekeeping faces new challenges, especially with regard to the protection of civilians, and UN forces have been given revolutionary mandates in several African states. But the 2015 report Uniting Our Strengths reaffirmed that UN peacekeeping is not suited to counter-terrorism or enforcement operations; the UN should turn to regional organizations such as the African Union as first responders in situations of ongoing armed conflict.
Essay from the year 2007 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict Studies, Security, grade: Distinction, Macquarie University, course: IRPG 842 Politics of International Law, language: English, abstract: This paper will argue against an expansion of international law to include an unrestricted doctrine of pre-emptive war in the legal conception of self-defence. In order to back this position arguments both for and against pre-emptive self-defence will be examined from a moral as well as practical point of view. After examining the nature of terrorist threats and current international law, this essay will focus on alternatives to and consequences of pre-emptive self-defence, before considering the limits of law and power in international relations.
Judge Stephen M. Schwebel has been a highly-respected member of the International Court of Justice since 1981. This volume brings together thirty-six of his legal articles and commentaries of continuing interest. He examines the performance and capacity of the International Court of Justice; aspects of international arbitration; problems of the United Nations; questions of international contracts and taking foreign property interests; and the development of international law, and in particular the central problem of the unlawful use of force.
The changing rules on the use of force in international law considers the main legal issues concerning the use of force by international organisations and states. It assesses the achievements and failures of the United Nations' collective security system, and discusses the prospects ahead. It also deals with the use of force by states in self-defence and on other legal grounds. The book discusses to what extent the rules on the use of force have evolved since the end of the Cold War in order to meet the needs of the international community. It focuses in particular on the military operations directed against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The research is developed from the standpoint of the sources of international law. It rejects a static vision of the rules on the use of force, including those enshrined in the UN Charter. Rather, it highlights the interaction between conventional and customary international law and the exposure of both sources to state practice.