The permissible use of defensive force is a central tenet of the traditional legal and philosophical justification for war and its practice. Just War Theory holds a nation’s right to resist aggressive attack with defensive force as the clearest example of a just cause for war. Just War Theory also stipulates norms for warfare derived from a conception of defensive force asserted to be consistent with the moral reality of war. Recently, these aspects of Just War Theory have been criticized. David Rodin has challenged the status of national defense as an uncontroversial just cause. Jeff McMahan has charged that Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare are inconsistent with the norms of permissive defensive force. In this thesis I defend the status of national defense as a clear case of a just cause. However, my defense may require revision of Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare.

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. / "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.

「天下雖安，忘戰必危」，基於國防科技發展攸關一國武力消長，且一旦武器外購管道受阻，國家安全及命脈均將受到威脅。面對國際情勢的複雜變化、中國大陸軍力的擴張、南海及東海領土領海主權爭議、美國「再平衡」的戰略作為、非傳統安全問題，造成亞太地區的安全困境及軍備競賽，嚴重影響整體區域安全，欲確保臺海和平及區域穩定，我們絕不能寄望他人的善意，唯有積極強化國防自主，方能有效維護國家安全。有鑑於自主國防理念，我國推行「國艦國造」政策，期以扶植國內造船產業發展，並帶動國家整體經濟發展，然「國艦國造」並非一蹴可及，需要長期努力及結合造船團隊才能逐步達成，本文即以決策理論為基礎，以「決策者」、「利益團體」及「官僚體系」等三種決策模型，分析國艦國造政策主要窒礙問題為，缺乏重工業基礎，造艦關鍵總成能量不足、政府未整合相關產業推展窒礙，適時修訂相關法令、造艦與修艦概念未整合，全壽期委外造艦模式難以推展等。並續以精進造船廠策略聯盟等六項建言修訂「國艦國造」整體政策，並期許國防部及民間造船產業鏈上的每一分子，均應以國家整體利益為重，以「國防定要自主的決心」共同完成「國艦國造」的光榮使命。 / Facing a changing international environment with traditional and non-traditional issues, such as military expansion of People’s Republic of China, territorial disputes in South and East China Sea, the U.S. “rebalancing”, etc., it is important to keep the national defense independent and accordingly maintain cross-strait peace and regional stability in East Asia. Therefore, Taiwan has promoted the “self-built warship” policy as a long-term goal in order to foster local shipbuilding industry, to encourage economic growth, and most important of all, to realize the ultimate goal which is self-defense. This thesis is trying to analyze the current problem of “self-built warship” under the decision-making framework by using the decision-maker model, the interest groups model, and the bureaucratic organizations model. Through these three models, I conclude that several obstacles hindering the policy promotion: lack of foundation of heavy industries, lack of key technology for shipbuilding, lack of capacities to integrating related industries, lack of proper law-making, lack of consistent capacities of constructing and repairing, and difficulties in outsourcing with total life cycle of warship. Finally, the author provides six policy recommendations improving the “warship self-built” policy which is expected to be fulfilled for the self-defense, a long term military defense policy in Republic of China on Taiwan.

Based on Ph.D. thesis--University of Nottingham, School of Law, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Martial arts for women - A quantitative study of which factors that influence women to start and to continue the training of martial arts

Torture is proscribed in the majority of countries, and prohibited by numerous international instruments. However, torture is nowadays a practice that takes place in many countries, even though there exists a majority agreement in favor of absolute prohibition of this conduct.In the present article, the author analyzes the possibility of using legal defenses to exempt criminal responsibility for the crime of torture. In order to do this, the author examines historical, doctrinal and jurisprudential aspects, concluding than in certain situations it is possible to appeal to traditional legal defenses, particularly selfdefense. / La tortura se encuentra proscrita en la mayoría de países, y está vetada por diversos instrumentos internacionales. No obstante, la tortura es en la actualidad una práctica que se lleva a cabo en muchos países, a pesar de un discurso mayoritario de prohibición absoluta de la misma.En el presente artículo, la autora realiza un análisis sobre la posibilidad de aplicar eximentes en el juicio de imputación del delito de tortura. Para ello, examina aspectos históricos, doctrinales y jurisprudenciales, concluyendo que en determinadas situaciones límite se verifican los presupuestos y requisitos de las causas de justificación tradicionales, en particular de la legítima defensa.

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.

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.

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.

This study investigated the effects of interactive lessons and learning style on student learning outcomes in self-defense education classes. The study utilized an experimental design that incorporated four self-defense education classes at the University of North Texas (UNT) during the fall semester 2007 (N = 87). A pre-test was administered during the first week of class to determine prior knowledge of the participants. The Visual Auditory Reading/Kinesthetic Inventory (VARK) was used to assess the learning styles of the students and was completed after the pre-test of knowledge was administered. The treatment group received the interactive lesson and the control received a paper review. The difference between the pre and posttest was used as a measure of improvement of the student's learning outcomes. A 2 (treatment/control) by 2 (pretest/posttest) ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted to examine the differential improvement in knowledge across the intervention. Based on the 2-way ANOVA there was a significant difference between the treatment group and the control group based on their learning outcomes. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between the groups based on the pre and post test scores. Based on the results of a one week study it was determined that interactive lessons do make a significant impact on learning outcomes compared to traditional reviews.