The Challenges Posed by Cyber Attacks to the Law on Self-Defence

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Couzigou
Keyword(s):  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

Self-Defence and Israel in International Law: A Reappraisal

1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Feinstein
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Self Help ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

Dean Acheson frankly reconfirmed the right of self-preservation, when he asserted, “…law simply does not deal with … questions of ultimate power—power that comes close to the sources of sovereignty…. No law can destroy the state creating the law. The survival of states is not a matter of law”. It is beyond the law.Given the existence of man's elementary loyalty to autonomous states, the necessity for using force springs from the need of states to depend fundamentally on self-help in order to guarantee their survival and welfare. This search for security in a system of politics without government, forces the state to be dependent upon military self-help.

scholarly journals Defenceless Castles

2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 407-427
Author(s):  
Mark P Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
True Intention

On 16 January 2016, the Divisional Court gave judgment in the case of Collins. In the judgment, Sir Brian Leveson P provided an authoritative statement as to the meaning of ‘grossly disproportionate’ within the law of self-defence for householders. First introduced in 2013, clarity on the meaning of the phrase has been long awaited by both the academic and the practitioner. The court’s interpretation of the phrase has disturbed the understanding of many and will cause many editions of upcoming criminal law textbooks to be rewritten on this point. This paper will examine whether the Divisional Court was correct in its interpretation by attempting to find the true intention of Parliament in drafting the legislation. The paper will also examine how the householder defences operates in modern practice and its suitability to the law of self-defence.

Self‐defence and the law

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-48
Author(s):  
Paul Infield
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

The Resilience of the Restrictive Rules on Self-Defence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joerg Kammerhofer
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Institutional Practice ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the resilience of the treaty, and perhaps also customary, law on self-defence since 2001. It first considers ‘resilience’ in the context of the jus ad bellum and how law can be resilient vis-à-vis changing circumstance, opinions, interpretation, and state practice. It then looks at the indicators for and against resilience by analysing post-2001 developments, paying particular attention to three areas: jurisprudence, scholarly literature in international law, and state and institutional practice. The chapter also explains what ‘resilience’ can and cannot be, and how the law and its perceptions change—or remain the same. Two avenues on the question of what is resilient are evaluated: either the norm or its interpretation (perception) change. Finally, the chapter considers a number of cases in which the International Court of Justice has made pronouncements on and partial clarifications of important aspects of the law on self-defence since 2001.

Public Law and Accountability of Government

1984 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Goldring
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

“But it was inherent in the very nature of the medium which they had selected for their own self-defence that it could not be reserved for the exclusive use only of their own class. The law, in its forms and traditions, entailed principles of equity and universality which, perforce, had to be extended to all. sorts and degrees of men”.2

From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Occupation ◽  
Self Defence

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

scholarly journals Self-Defence against Non-state Actors: The Interaction between Self-Defence as a Primary Rule and Self-Defence as a Secondary Rule

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 801-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS TSAGOURIAS
Keyword(s):  
Legal Issues ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Security Threat ◽  
Alternative Framework ◽  
Primary Rule ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Secondary Rule ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThis article examines the law of self-defence as applied to non-state attacks in light of the coalition air strikes against ISIL in Syria. It critiques the two current interpretations of the law of self-defence – one based on attribution and the other on the ‘unable or unwilling’ test – for failing to address adequately the security threat posed by non-state actors or for not addressing convincingly the legal issues arising from the fact that the self-defence action unfolds on the territory of another state. For this reason, it proposes an alternative framework which combines the primary rule of self-defence to justify the use of defensive force against non-state actors, with the secondary rule of self-defence to excuse the incidental breach of the territorial state's sovereignty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document