Global ETD Search

1	Doktrina "unwilling or unable" a právo na sebeobranu proti nestátním aktérům / The "unwilling or unable" doctrine and the right of self-defence against non-state actors Syvulja, Nela January 2021 (has links) The "unwilling or unable" doctrine and the right of self-defence against non- state actors ABSTRACT For several decades, the fight against international terrorism has been a major challenge for the entire international community. States try to fight these non-state actors in various ways. One of them is trying to neutralize a non-state actor in the territory of the state in which this actor has settled and from which he is preparing and coordinating his attacks. States often invoke the right to self-defense in the case of such actions, stating that the state in whose territory the non-state entity is located is unable or unwilling to deal with it on its own. This paper is devoted to the right to self-defense against non-state actors and the emerging doctrine of "unwilling or unable". The paper is divided into an introduction, four main chapters and a conclusion. The first chapter is devoted generally to the prohibition of the use of force and the threat of force. The second chapter deals with the right to self-defense. First, attention is paid to the right to self-defense in general, where an armed attack is discussed in more detail. Subsequently, a restrictive and extensive approach to the right to self-defense is presented. Attention is then paid more to the preemptive and preventive self-defense and the...
2	Doktrína ,,unwilling or unable" a její vývoj v mezinárodním právu / The unwilling or unable doctrine and its development in international law Matoušková, Anna January 2021 (has links) The unwilling or unable doctrine and its development in international law Abstract The unwilling or unable doctrine represents a response of the international community to the increasing presence of non-state actors in international relations. According to this doctrine, a state who suffers an attack by a non-state actor is entitled to intervene in the territory of the state where this non-state actor finds its harbour, given that this state is unwilling or unable to tackle the threat alone. This, in turn, means that the harbouring state must endure an intervention by the attacked state on its territory, even though the harbouring state has not resorted to the use of force itself - the action of the non-state actor is not attributable to it. This thesis first pays attention to the concept of self-defence, in terms of its two equivalent content sources - customary and contractual international law. Both of these sources set certain (pre)conditions for the exercise of the right to self-defence. In the case of customary law, these are conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy. The UN Charter then determines one further precondition for exercising the right to self-defence - the existence of a previous armed attack. Given that the unwilling or unable doctrine is a specific example of how states...
3	The temporal scope of Unwilling or Unable : a case study on Syria Ljuslin, Linda January 2018 (has links) The purpose with this paper is to analyze the temporal scope of the doctrine of Unwilling or Unable and focus on when the right to use force in self-defense ends. According to the doctrine a State has a right to use force in self-defense towards a non-state actor on another States territory, if the harboring state is Unwilling or Unable to suppress the non-state actor. This paper will first analyze which factors governs the right to use force in self-defense according to the Unwilling or Unable doctrine and secondly the findings will be applied to the situation in Syria, where the United States are using force in collective self-defense on Iraq’s request, towards ISIL. The conflict will be analyzed in three different time periods, 2014, 2016 and 2018 to identify for how long the United States has a right to use force in self-defense in Syria. The conclusion in this paper is that in 2014 and 2016 the United States has a right to use force in self-defense towards ISIL on Syria’s territory according to the doctrine, but in 2018 the circumstances has changed and the United States’ right to use force in self-defense in Syria has ended. International law Unwilling or Unable Syria The United States Necessity Proportionality Law and Society Juridik och samhälle
4	Protiplnění při povinné nabídce převzetí a vypořádávání při nedobrovolném snížení podílu akcionáře / Valuable Consideration in Takeover Bid and Settlement by Unwilling Reducing of Shareholder’s Share Koranda, Vladimír January 2009 (has links) This work deals with valuable consideration when changes of ownership of equity securities occur in connection with corporate changes in joint-stock company, especially with unwilling changes -- rise of registered capital with excluding the priority subscription right (§ 204a/5 of the Commercial Code), unwilling transfer of shares on the major shareholder (§ 354 of the "Act on the changes of commercial companies and associations") and squeeze out (§ 183i of the Commercial Code). Valuable consideration defines relatively in detail the Takeover Bid Act. This framework could be to certain extent analogically used for valuable consideration in unwilling transaction. However, its definition itself offers a considerable room for interpretation, so is also seized as the independent secondary topic (chapter 1). The main topic concerns two basic aspects. The first is a company evaluation. In this aspect we will take a look only at the dependence of the expert providing the evaluation on major shareholder (chapter 5). Work aims at the second problematic aspect of unwilling transaction - a premium over the valuable consideration for the infringement of right (chapter 2, especially section 2.4.). The work also deals with unevaluated risks of minority shareholders in the period beginning the day to which the company was evaluated to time of the pay out of ownership (chapter 4).
5	The Killing of Osama bin Laden, Was it Lawful? Elfström, Amanda January 2012 (has links) The main purpose of this work is to investigate if the US ́s killing of Osama bin Laden on 2 May 2011 in Abbottabad in Pakistan was lawful. The background to the killing is what happened on 11 September 2001 when four US airplanes were hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and Pentagon. Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation led by Osama bin Laden, was immediately suspected for the attacks, which led to the starting point of the US ́s ‘global war on terror’. This work tries to give a short brief on ‘global war on terror’ and answer if there is a global war on terror and/or if a new category of war is needed. In order to get an answer to the main question of this work I had to investigate if US is in an international armed conflict or in a non-international armed conflict with Al Qaida. Another important question to investigate is if an armed conflict in one State can spill over to another State and still be consider as an armed conflict. Other important questions to answer are, if Osama bin Laden was a legitimate target under international humanitarian law, if he was a civilian or if he had a continuous combat function and what level of participation in hostilities he had? Not less important is also to investigate if human rights law is applicable when Osama bin Laden was killed, especially the fundamental right to life. Lastly I end my investigation with a quick review of the laws of jus ad bellum in order to get an answer if US had a right to resort to force in Pakistan. My conclusion is that the US was not involved in an armed conflict with al Qaeda in Pakistan where the killing took place. The conflict between the US and al Qaeda in Afghanistan is to be categorised as a non-international conflict. This conflict cannot be described as a conflict that has spilled over to Abbottabad where Osama bin Laden was killed. All people, including Osama bin Laden, has a right to life. Because of lack of information on what happened in Abbottabad when Osama bin Laden was killed it is impossible to give a clear legal answer if the US had the right to kill him. It could be lawful, but it could also be considered as a crime against international human rights law. Target ICCPR Use of force self-defence anticipatory self-defence unwilling unable Human Right to Life Arbitrary Deprivation of Life Jus ad bellum jus in bello Distinction Global War on Terror GWOT Extraterritorial Applicability Direct Participation in Hostilities Geographical Scope Armed Conflict Temporal Scope Continuous Combat Function IHL IHRL HR International Human Rights Law International Humanitarian Law Osama bin Laden al Qaeda International Armed Conflict Non-International Armed Conflict

1

Page generated in 0.0596 seconds