Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
14. What is the law of self-defense? flashcard
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: 14. What is the law of self-defense? flashcard
Anticipatory (Pre-emptive) Self-defence: The Need for a Modern Approach
The use of military force is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorisation. To justify a resort to pre-emptive war, a state must give reasonable proof that the action is necessary to the vital national security interests of the state, and that the act of aggression in self-defence is proportional, according to Charter principles. The threat imposed by an aggressor must be proven to be clear and imminent, direct, critical to the state facing disproportionate danger, and unable to be handled using peaceful alternatives. According to the Charter, to deem self-defence lawful requires that an attack has already been launched against a victim state. Examples of states acting pre-emptively in anticipatory self-defence have further elaborated on this legality, creating in some instances an international acceptance that in the case of an imminent attack, the necessity of a proportional assault in self-defence is lawful. However, the issue remains that the Charter, in order to deem an action as lawful self-defence, requires the existence of an armed attack on the victim state. Interpretation on what constitutes an armed attack is what generates the most disagreement amongst the international law community. It is agreeable, however, that no state can be expected to sit idly by and await the first blow of an armed attack by an aggressor state in the modern era of warfare.
The recent War on Terrorism is giving us an example of how...
... middle of paper ...
...efence”.
American Journal Of International Law. Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 601-602.
[10] Bothe, Michael.(2003) “Terrorism and the Legality of Pre-emptive Force”. European
Journal of International Law. Vol. 14, No. 2 : p. 230.
[11] United States National Security Strategy. 17 September 2002. United States
Department of State Information Service. Available at:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/wh/c.7899.htm
[12] Sapiro, Miriam. (2003) “Iraq: The Shifting Sands of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence”.
American Journal Of International Law. Vol. 97, No. 3, p. 602.
[13] Schmitt, Michael.(2003). “Pre-emptive Strategies and International Law”. Michigan
Journal of International Law. Pp 513-548.
[14] Schmitt, Michael. (2003) “Pre-emptive Strategies and International Law”. Michigan
Journal of International Law. Pp 513-548.
According to Catholics for Peace and Justice, “the just war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.” The Just War Theory states that there are seven conditions that must be met in order for a declared war to be a true and just war. The first of these values is Just Cause. This means that force can only be utilized to correct an aggression or evil. If the war is being declared out of spite or to seek revenge, the war cannot be defined as being just. Also, there must be a formal declaration of war and warning with spoken terms of what the aims are and what this war will plan to fulfill. The next criterion is Comparative Justice which means the injustice suffered by one party can NOT significantly outweigh the suffering from the other party. For example, if the initial attack o...
As an African American, I am delighted to see my history acknowledged but when information is not being broaden and explained correctly people are still left ignorant. If Black History Month is going to be celebrated, then present it the right way. It doesn’t have to always be about killing, depression, and what occurred fifty years ago. African Americans should continue to update their presentations on black achievements every year. Something fresh and new needs to be displayed instead of the same people and situations year after year.
Last Resort: A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. From a diplomatic standpoint there are many other options in which conflict can be resolved. Often treaties are used to avoid war, however, the intention of resolutions should be to preserve moral justice rather than to avoid costly combat. The use of force should only be a last resort as a response to aggressive action.
The principles of Just War theory and different ethical frameworks have been used for many years to justify and reject plans for military interventions. These ideologies are useful tools for the leaders of governments and militaries to discuss and make decisions on the morality of different courses of action. If ISIS launched a series of terrorist attacks on American embassies as hypothesized, the given plan for military intervention would be morally justified due to several principles of Just War theory and various ethical frameworks. These include the ideas of jus ad bellum and jus post bellum from Just War theory and the ethical ideologies of utilitarianism and common good ethics.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
In “Ethics and Intervention: The ‘Humanitarian Exception’ and the Problem of Abuse in the Case of Iraq, Alex Bellamy argues that war is only justified in exceptional cases where “supreme humanitarian intervention” is genuinely required (Bellamy, p. 137). Bellamy discusses the ethics of intervention and the decision of the US to invade Iraq. He provides the argument that international law does not provide moral reasoning on the issues of war. However, he acknowledges that it does provide an important foundation on the issue of legitimacy of war. He discusses two legal justifications for war, which include implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defense of that state. Neither of these is the case in Iraq, although the government may say
As states in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The charter additionally outlines exceptions to article 2(4): force used in self-defense the attack must be an armed attack; security council enforcement actions under chapter VII-The security council is authorized under article 39 to determine the existence of any...
In the context of deviant behaviour and its control, or lack thereof, exist numerous theories and data that try to interpret the reason youth enrol in gangs. That being said, sources based on practical data are ideal to justify the cause of this deviant lifestyle. This paper will primarily address the practical data in conjunction with Merton's strain theory to elaborate on youth motivation for joining gangs. The findings pose a connection among living in a deviant environment and lifestyle prior to membership, a sense of belonging, and economic strain as the fundamental reasons to explain why youth join gangs.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
Black History month previously known as Negro History week has been recognized annually since 1926. The study of Black History is owed to Dr. Carter G. Woodson, born into a family of slaves, he worked in the coal mines during his childhood and enrolled in high school at the age of 20, he would later earn a PhD from Harvard. Dr. Woodson was disturbed to find that the history of African Americans was not documented in history books the only time they were reflected was in the inferior social position they were assigned at the time. Dr. Woodson established the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History in 1915 and in 1916 he founded the Journal of Negro History.
One of the greatest tragedies of American history was the myth that America could flourish without blacks, flourishing as people. Black Americans fought to establish themselves first, as people. Black History Month is one way we as a nation can commit to the study and celebration of a history of change. A history of freedom, equality, and justice denied. A history of oppression, opportunity, and of contradictions and compromise. Black History Month is a time to celebrate black arts and literature and black
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
The argument saying there should be a White History Month because there’s a Black History Month is laughable. White History Month is every month, White History Month is celebrated with the Oscars, a majority of movies and TV shows, every history class in school, and many more are all examples of White History Month. White representation is very present all around the world, the lighter you are the more beautiful. Dark skin black girls don’t have the same praise as light skin black girls, because the whiter you look you’re more seen as a sign of
The use of physical discipline arises an abundant amount of negative outcomes for the children impacted by the physical punishment. Typically, the physically punished child will result in having several psychological troubles fro...
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...