Global ETD Search

1	Humanitarian Intervention in an Era of Pre-emptive Self -Defense Whitman, Jim R. 18 May 2009 (has links) No / The dichotomy between prohibitive law and moral responsibility is at the centre of debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, political interests remain an important factor not only in determining and tempering the humanitarian impulses of states, but also for gauging their more general adherence to the rule of law. The humanitarian intervention debate only has meaning in a context in which there is general, routine adherence to the non-interventionist norm of the international system, codified as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The `Bush Doctrine¿ of pre-emptive self-defence alters the political and politico-legal context that has until now given the humanitarian intervention debate its meaning and importance. Given this, together with a more general loosening of the strictures prohibiting or limiting the use of force, there is good cause for concern about the foundations of the post-1945 international order. The debate about humanitarian intervention can no longer abstract the tension between law and morality from a political arena that is facing such profound challenges. Humanitarian intervention Bush Doctrine Pre-emptive self-defence Article 2(4 National Security Strategy
2	Pre-Emptive Self-Defence : When does an armed attack occur? Sandin, Michael January 2021 (has links) No description available. Pre-emptive self-defence article 51 un-charter anticipatory self-defence self-defense Förebyggande självförsvar föregripande självförsvar artikel 51 fn-stadgan Law Juridik
3	Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001 Williamson, Myra Elsie Jane Bell January 2007 (has links) The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the 'inherent right of self-defence', which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence. United Nations' Security Council United Nations' General Assembly opinio juris extradite or prosecute aut dedere aut judicare North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NATO preambular paragraphs operative paragraphs anticipatory self-defence preemptive self-defence pre-emptive self-defence preemption self-defense self defense conflict data Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) terrorism trends just war Pact of Paris Kellogg-Briand Treaty Treaty of Westphalia Covenant of the League of Nations definition of aggression changin nature of conflict President George W Bush Prime Minister Tony Blair Prime Minister John Howard international reaction to terrorism 9/11 11 September 2001 September 11.

1

Page generated in 0.0688 seconds