No description available.

This research examines the legal issues surrounding killing in defence of property in three selected jurisdictions: South Africa, Cameroon and the United States. The comparative analysis illustrates that although the right to protect one’s property is universal, this defence is interpreted differently in the various jurisdictions. Another issue considered in the study is the constitutional right to life in each jurisdiction and whether or not an unlawful attack against one’s property creates a legal entitlement for the attacked party to take the life of another in defence of his or her property. Private defence of property is available when a person uses force to defend an interest in property, for example; to prevent a would-be thief from taking his own, or another’s property, to prevent someone from damaging his own or another’s property, to prevent an intruder from entering his own or another’s property. When an accused pleads private defence, his claim is that his harm-causing conduct was, in the circumstances, lawful. The reasonable use of force (short of deadly force) in the private defence of property is not disputed. However, the use of deadly force in protection of property is controversial, especially in a constitutional state such as South Africa where life should be prized above property. One should however also consider that there is a close link between the private defence of defending life and of protecting property. In many cases, an assault on property also involves a threat on life. However, there are cases of private defence of property where no threat to bodily integrity exists. These situations will be examined in all three jurisdictions and measured against the various constitutional imperatives. Conclusions and recommendations are made as regards the legal framework on the defence of property in the criminal law of the various jurisdictions. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M.

L'action du Conseil de sécurité dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme a témoigné un énorme progrès. Ce progrès est matérialisé sur le double aspect normatif et institutionnel, engendrant une diversification des mécanismes de la lutte. La nécessité de le définir semble être dépassée au gré de son éradication et sa suppression vue sa mutation graduelle à travers le temps et la montée en puissance de ses acteurs. Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies concentre son action sur les mécanismes de la lutte en accroissant son pouvoir normatif vers un pouvoir législatif le conférant des prérogatives considérables. Ensuite, dans le cadre institutionnel de l'ONU, il monopolise la mission du maintenir la paix et la sécurité internationales, en rendant l'activité de l'Assemblée générale résiduelle et facultative. Ce regain de ses prérogatives s'est reflété au sein des organes subsidiaires qu'il a mis en place, surtout après le 11 septembre 2001. L'amplification des mécanismes de la lutte contre le terrorisme s'est représentée, également, dans le cadre de la résurgence des concepts fondamentaux en droit international comme la légitime défense qui mettra en cause le concept de sécurité collective prévu vers la Charte par des ripostes militaires unilatérales dans l'objectif de lutte contre le terrorisme international / In his fight against terrorism, the action of Security Council has witnessed an enormous progress. This progress was seen on both normative and institutional aspects leading towards a diversification of the counter terrorism mechanisms. The necessity of its definition seems be bypassed on the benefit of its eradication and suppression especially because of its gradual mutation and the highly powers given to its perpetrators. The United Nations Security Council concentrates its effort, in the mechanisms of counter terrorism, by increasing its normative powers towards a legislative one by gaining considerable prerogatives. On the institutional aspect, the Security Council has monopolized the maintain of international peace and security task, by giving the General Assembly a residual and facultative role. This power regaining is reflected on his ability to create subsidiary organs, especially after the 11th of September 2001. The amplification of the counter terrorism mechanisms was materialized by the submergence of old and fundamental aspects in international public law such as the concept of self-defense. A concept that will jeopardize the collective security system when States will unilaterally will use military force in their counter terrorism quest.

"Mémoire présenté à la faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.)". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 10% des mémoires de la discipline. / À la suite d'attaques terroristes massives est apparue une motivation féroce qui risque d'être manipulée pour justifier des excès de force. Voulant prévenir des attaques armées contre leurs intérêts, certains États ont adopté des politiques de « tuerie ciblée » pour éliminer de façon permanente des terroristes en sol étranger qui menacent leur sécurité. II est pourtant illégal de tuer des individus en l'absence de conflits armes sans égard au droit à la vie. La présente recherche tient à déterminer si, en vertu du droit international, des États peuvent neutraliser par force des individus dangereux ou bien venir au secours d' otages en sol etranger. En étudiant l'article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies, un certain nombre de conclusions sont apparues, notamment que des opérations pour « arrêter ou neutraliser » ne peuvent avoir lieu que dans des États qui supportent des terroristes ou qui restent indifférents face à leur présence, et que I'expression « guerre contre Ie terrorisme » ne peut permettre des «tueries ciblées » sans avoir à considérer les droits à la vie et à la légitime défense. Puisque toute division entre les membres de la communauté internationale peut venir limiter la prévention d'attaques, le fait que la coopération entre les États ayant abolis la peine de mort et ceux ayant recours aux « tueries ciblées » puissent en souffiir fait l'objet de cet ouvrage. Ladite recherche conclue que l'utilisation de « tueries ciblées » en dehors du contexte de conflits armés ne peut être permis qu'en dernière mesure lorsque réellement nécessaire pour prévenir des attaques armées et protéger la vie. / From the ashes of devastating acts of terrorism has arIsen a resolve so powerful that measures of counterterrorism risk being manipulated by states to justify excess. In an attempt to prevent armed attacks against their interests, a number of states have adopted policies of targeted killing to permanently incapacitate terrorists on foreign soil. The intentional killing of suspected offenders, however, cannot be lawfully carried-out by states in the absence of armed conflict without regard for the right to life. The following research attempts to determine whether it is permissible for nations to use force on foreign soil to . incapacitate dangerous individuals or rescue hostages under international law. By studying article 51 selfdefense of the United Nations charter, a number of conclusions are asserted, namely that operations to "arrest or neutralise" can only be carried-out in states that support terrorists or are complacent to their presence, and that declaring "war on terrorism" cannot allow governments to kill suspected terrorists in countries where there is no war, except in a manner that is reconcilable with the rights to life and selfdefense. Since division among members of the international community may ultimately diminish their ability to collectively suppress international terrorism, the potential for hindered cooperation between abolitionist states and those that carry-out targeted killings is also addressed. The current research concludes that targeted killings can only be justified outside the context of armed conflict when they are truly necessary as a last resort to prevent armed attacks and save lives.

This purpose of this study is to investigate the apologetic rhetoric of professional athletes’ off-field scandals. The three case studies used were Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Phelps. A genre analysis was conducted to determine the success or failure of the speech by examining the image repair strategies used during the rhetoric. Further research revealed that the audiences’ perception plays a large role in determining if the rhetoric was successful or not. Two factors that aid the audience are the medium in which the public address was given, and the time it took to deliver the speech once the off-field scandal took place. The findings determined that Tiger Woods apologia was not successful, while Kobe Bryant’s was successful. The rhetoric of Michael Phelps’ speech lacked in delivery and strategies chosen. To have a successful apologia, one should have a clear use of strategies as well as a timely public address. / Includes bibliography. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2017. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Esta tese tem por objetivo criticar a \"Doutrina Bush\", cujos termos foram lançados na Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA de 2002 e têm orientado a política externa da atual Administração daquele país no sentido de uma maior assertividade do poder militar estadunidense contra as ameaças, atuais ou futuras, que ponham em risco a sua posição de dominância no plano internacional, em particular no seu pleito de legalidade da legítima defesa chamada preemptiva. A este respeito, esta tese faz duas afirmações centrais: 1) que, ao contrário do que os termos em que está formulada nos querem fazer crer, não se trata de uma política de ataques preemptivos, mas sim de ataques preventivos, que não podem ser subsumidos ao instituto jurídico da legítima defesa; 2) que qualquer política de ataques preventivos decididos de maneira unilateral é incompatível com a manutenção da ordem no atual sistema em que se estruturam as relações internacionais na atualidade. Para tanto, na primeira parte da tese, é analisada a justificação político-filosófica da legítima defesa, cujo reconhecimento nos sistemas jurídicos positivos se revela uma condição racional de sua legitimidade, bem como, a partir dos limites marcados pelos princípios justificantes - agressão atual e necessidade dos meios empregados na defesa -, é apresentado um conceito ideal de legítima defesa; na segunda parte, expõe-se a regulação do instituto da legítima defesa no direito internacional, especialmente na Carta da ONU, contra a qual é, em seguida, comparada a proposta de \"legítima defesa preemptiva\" feita pela \"Doutrina Bush\". Desta se conclui que, nos termos em que é formulada, não pode ser considerada como legítima defesa, porque dispensa o requisito do ataque atual, em curso ou iminente, revelando-se verdadeira ação preventiva, cuja atribuição somente deve caber a um órgão que represente a comunidade internacional, no caso, o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, sob pena de fragilizar a proibição do uso da força nas relações internacionais. Por outro lado, entendida a preempção nos estreitos limites da resposta antecipada a um ataque iminente, defende-se que seja abrangida pela permissão do uso da força em legítima defesa, desde que sujeita a alguma forma de controle posterior. / This thesis intends to refute the so-called \"Bush Doctrine\", whose terms have been laid down in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002, and have since then oriented the present Administration\'s foreign policy towards a greater assertiveness of military power against either present or future threats to its dominant position in international relations, in particular its proposition of a right to preemptive self-defense. In this respect, this thesis advance two central claims: 1) that, contrary to what the actual terms in which this doctrine is formulated might want to suggest, it is not a policy of preemptive strikes that is being proposed, but one of prevention, which is beyond the reach of the legal right of self-defense; 2) that any policy of unilateral preventive strikes is contrary to the maintenance of order in the present international system. In order to support this claims, in the first part of the thesis, the philosophical and political justification of the right to self-defense is examined, the recognition of such a right in actual normative systems emerging as a rational condition of their legitimacy, and an ideal concept of self-defense is advanced that results from the application to the claim to individual self-preservation of the requirements deriving from this justification: an actual aggression and the concrete necessity of the means employed in the defense; in the second part of the thesis, the regulation of self-defense by international law, specially through the Charter of the United Nations, is explained, in the terms of which the legality of the Bush Doctrine\'s claim of preemptive self-defense is verified. Of this claim it is concluded that, at least in the way it is described by the National Security Strategy, it cannot be regarded as self-defense, because it does away with the necessary element of an actual aggression, either in progress or imminent, being in fact a variety of preventive use of force, the recourse to which should be restricted to an organ representing the community, in this case the Security Council of the United Nations, lest the prohibition of the recourse to force in international relations is relaxed. That notwithstanding, it is advanced that, as long as one understands preemption only as an early response to an imminent attack, it can be reconciled with the authorization to use force in self-defense, if subjected to some form of ex post control.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gracieli Firmino da Silva.pdf: 581468 bytes, checksum: 296367848348b3fb5836ce8a4eb4ed16 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-12-18 / Defending juridical goods has always been one of the human major priorities, so that both private and public prosecution must be performed respectively by the individual or by the State to strengthen democracy or to legitimate justice. The major interest of preserving them is due to the individual while the State acts in a secondary way, helping him and providing him conditions to act, to execute when he provokes the jus puniendi, or his due right for punishment. Thus, the proprietor of the juridical goods uses pre-established defense mechanisms so-called brianbackers, or "offendicula", by doctrine. It is concerning an area which is still in need of research. The right of private prosecution is inherent to the individual as his defense and it is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The moderate use of brianbackers characterizes a justifiable cause which will exclude the antijuridicity of a fortuitous legal fact considered as typical which can happen. However, if there is an excess in its usage, the proprietor can probably be considered criminally responsible for acting with guilty intent, recklessness, or with strict liability, except if the error is generated in an excusable way. The results provided by the data make us conclude that brianbackers represent a pre-established self-defense which authorizes the defendant to make use of them always in moderation / A defesa do bem jurídico sempre foi uma das prioridades do ser humano. Tanto o Estado quanto o particular devem exercer tal mister. Ao particular cabe a função principal de tutelar o seu bem, já que possui o maior interesse pela sua preservação, enquanto o Estado atua de maneira secundária, auxiliando-o e dando-lhe condições de agir, exercendo, quando provocado, o seu jus puniendi . Para tanto, o proprietário do bem jurídico utiliza-se de dispositivos de defesa predispostos, que são denominados pela doutrina como ofendículos. A importância deste estudo é latente, já que explora uma área carecedora de pesquisa. Sua utilização pelo proprietário é atividade inerente do seu direito de defesa, garantido pela Constituição Federal. O uso moderado dos ofendículos caracteriza uma causa justificadora que irá excluir a antijuridicidade de eventual fato típico que vier a ocorrer. Entretanto, surgindo excesso na sua utilização, o proprietário será passível de responsabilização criminal, dolosa ou culposamente, exceto se o erro tiver sido gerado de maneira escusável. Os resultados obtidos nos reportam à conclusão de que os ofendículos representam uma legítima defesa preordenada que autoriza o defendente a utilizá-lo sempre com moderação

Esta dissertação tem por objetivo analisar as ações militares lideradas pelos EUA no Afeganistão, em 2001, como resposta aos notórios ataques terroristas de 11 de setembro daquele ano contra o WTC e o pentágono, tendo como o foco confrontar os argumentos jurídico-políticos dos EUA utilizados no sentido de qualificar suas ações militares no referido conflito armado pretensamente sob a égide da legítima defesa, com os argumentos jurídicos trazidos pelas normas, usos e costumes e doutrina do direito internacional. Na primeira parte do trabalho, são relatados, mediante a utilização da doutrina internacional, e de documentos de política externa, os fatos envolvendo o conflito armado no Afeganistão de 2001, expondo os principais acontecimentos, segundo uma ordem cronológica, abordando também as Resoluções da ONU sobre tais eventos. Também será exposta uma breve síntese contendo uma contextualização histórica e geopolítica sobre o Afeganistão. Na segunda parte do trabalho, são destacadas algumas das seqüelas produzidas por tais fatos, quais sejam: a Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA, lançada em 2002, também conhecida como a \'Doutrina Bush\', com a respectiva política de ataques preventivos; e a subseqüente e polêmica invasão militar norte-americana ao Iraque em 2003, que ficou conhecida como a Segunda Guerra do Golfo. Finalmente, na terceira parte do trabalho, faz-se um enfrentamento mais direto dos argumentos utilizados pelos EUA para legitimar, sob o manto da legítima defesa individual ou coletiva, o uso da força contra o Afeganistão, expondo, para tanto, contra-argumentos lastreados no Direito Internacional vigente, contendo, em primeiro lugar, a evolução histórica da regulação do uso da força e do sistema de segurança coletiva, a imperatividade das normas internacionais que autorizam o uso da força, e suas exceções legítimas. Demonstrada a solidez dos arts. 2 (4) e 51 da Carta da ONU, e da Resolução 3314/74 da Assembléia-Geral da ONU, \"Definição de Agressão\", conclui-se pela ausência, no conflito objeto deste estudo, do elemento caracterizador da legítima defesa, o ato de agressão atribuível a um determinado Estado (o Afeganistão); da usurpação das limitações ao seu exercício: a proporcionalidade e provisoriedade da situação criada; bem como alertando-se sobre os riscos inerentes na redução dos requisitos previstos pelo artigo 51 da Carta das Nações Unidas. / This dissertation aims to analyze the actions led by the U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, in 2001, in response to the notorious terrorist attacks occurred on 11 September 2001 against the WTC and the Pentagon, mainly focusing on comparing all legal and political arguments which U.S. claim to qualify their military actions in the aforementioned armed conflict under the aegis of self-defense, with the legal arguments brought by the rules, practices and customs of international law and doctrine. In the first part of the work, by using the international doctrine, and documents of foreign policy, the facts involving the armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2001 are reported outlining the main events, according to a chronological order, and also addressing the UN Resolutions on such events. It will also be exposed on a brief contextualization of Afghanistan\'s history and geopolitical situation. In the second part of work, some of the sequels produced by such facts are highlighted, which are the following: the U.S. National Security Strategy, launched in 2002, also known as the \'Bush Doctrine\', containing its policy of preventive attacks, and also the subsequent and controversy U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which would became known as the Second Gulf War. Finally, in the third part of the work, there will be a more direct confrontation between the arguments used to legitimize the U. S. actions against Afghanistan, under the mantle of individual or collective self-defense, and therefore the counter-arguments supported by the existing international law, that will inc1ude, firstly, the historical evolution of the regulation of the use of force and the collective security system, the imperative international law that grants the legitimate exceptions for the use of force. Whereas there will be demonstrated the consistency of the artic1es 2 (4) and 51 of the UN Charter and the Resolution 3314/74 of the UN General Assembly, \"Definition of Aggression\" it is conc1uded that in this specific armed conflict, an essential element of self-defense is not present: an aggression attributable to a specific state (Afghanistan); and also are missing all the limitations required during self-defense exercise: the proportionality and the provisional character of the created situation in Afghanistan; lastly it is underlined the inherent risks of reducing the requirements established by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Este trabalho procura investigar a revitalização da teoria da guerra justa nas suas formas tradicional e na Filosofia Política Contemporânea. Assim como a sua influência, dentro de um fenômeno amplo de moralização do Direito Internacional Público, acerca dos casos polêmicos sobre o uso da força armada, em especial as intervenções humanitárias e a legítima defesa antecipatória. Analisa a recepção destas idéias na doutrina do Direito Internacional, da Filosofia do Direito Internacional e nas Comissões Internacionais que trataram do uso da força armada nos últimos anos. / This work wants to investigate the revitalization of the theory of just war in its traditional way and in Contemporary Political Philosophy. As such as its influence, inside the matter of moralization of International Law, on the polemical cases about the use of armed force, especially humanitarian interventions and anticipatory self-defense. Analyses the reception of these ideas on the doctrine of International Law, Philosophy of International Law, and International Commissions which dealt with the use of armed force in the last years.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T12:22:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Aline Chianca Dantas.pdf: 2235681 bytes, checksum: f6908e90cba608d7851dafbc1d10f674 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-04 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This paper aims to discuss the impact of the discourse of human security on the performance of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and, consequently, on Japanese national security. In order to do this, the work is divided into four parts: exposure of the links between Japanese national security and SDF, presentation of the SDF s action, interaction of the SDF with the discourse of human security and the implications of human security discourse on Japanese national security, in terms of expanding the military character. The methodology adopted in this study is guided by a bibliographic research on the featured topics, emphasizing qualitative and quantitative aspects, whereas the theoretical approach is consistent with the time of each survey. The ideas used were the ones of Wendt s (1999), reflecting over the relationship between agent and structure, the constructive thoughts of Onuf (2002) and Zehfuss (2002), demonstrating the relevance of discourse and ultimately realistic assumptions connected with issues of power and interest. So, in the light of the exposed, it is argued that Japan is in a smooth process of militarization and normalization, within what is meant by pacific activism, having as one of its tools for this an instrument of soft power, that is the human security discourse. / Este trabalho objetiva debater o impacto do discurso de segurança humana sobre a atuação das Forças de Autodefesa Japonesas e, consequentemente, sobre a segurança nacional japonesa. Para isso, divide-se o trabalho em quatro partes: exposição dos laços entre a segurança nacional japonesa e as FAD, apresentação da atuação das FAD, interação das FAD com o discurso de segurança humana e as implicações do discurso de segurança humana sobre a segurança nacional japonesa, em termos de ampliação do caráter militar. A metodologia adotada nesse estudo pauta-se em pesquisas bibliográficas sobre os temas destacados, ressaltando-se aspectos qualitativos e quantitativos; já a abordagem teórica coaduna-se com cada momento da pesquisa, sendo utilizadas as ideias de Wendt (1999) da relação entre agente e estrutura, pensamentos construtivistas de Onuf (2002) e Zehfuss (2002), denotando-se a relevância do discurso e, finalmente, premissas realistas conectadas com questões de poder e interesse. Portanto, à luz do exposto, argumenta-se que o Japão encontra-se em processo de militarização e normalização suave, dentro do que se entende por ativismo pacífico, tendo como uma de suas ferramentas para isso um instrumento de soft power, que é o discurso de segurança humana.