Download Free Unilateral Preemptive Self Defense Has Its Time Arrived Assessing The International Legality Of Unilateral Preemptive Self Defense In The 2002 National Security Strategy Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Unilateral Preemptive Self Defense Has Its Time Arrived Assessing The International Legality Of Unilateral Preemptive Self Defense In The 2002 National Security Strategy and write the review.

This Oxford Handbook provides an authoritative and comprehensive analysis of one of the most controversial areas of international law. Over seventy contributors assess the current state of the international law prohibiting the use of force, assessing its development and analysing the many recent controversies that have arisen in this field.
Self-defense and the right to go to war. Originally published: New York: Praeger, [1958]. xv, 294 pp. Bowett observes that the use or threat of force by any state can be a delict, an approved sanction, or a measure taken in self-defense. He examines the evolution of self-defense doctrine in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, with the assumption of the existence of a state's unlimited 'right' to go to war. He then attempts to outline the limited and provisional effects of this right under the U.N. Charter. This book was written after Bowett's term as a United Nations legal officer from 1957-1959. "Throughout the work there is a refusal to dogmatize or to state in absolute terms any aspect of the 'privilege' of self-defence in its present context. (...) [Bowett] is to be congratulated on producing a timely and scholarly survey of one of the most fundamental, and often abused, sovereign rights known to international law." --K.R. Simmonds, British Year Book of International Law 34 (1958) 432. SIR DEREK WILLIAM BOWETT [1927-2009], an international lawyer, was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1969-1982 and Whewell Professor of International Law, Cambridge, from 1981-1991. He was awarded a CBE in 1983 and a knighthood in 1998. He is the author of The Law of International Institutions (1963), United Nations Forces: A Legal Study (1964), The Law of the Sea (1967), The Search for Peace (1972) and The International Court of Justice (1996).
Provides a multi-perspective study of the international law on self-defence against non-State actors.
A longtime scholar of the Cold War deftly weaves together the tradition of "just war" and an examination of current events to show how the time-honored concepts of jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war) apply to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq. This timely analysis of President George W. Bush's foreign policy deals with the cornerstone of his administrations—the "war on terror"—as implemented in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and at Abu Ghraib prison. The Choice of War: The Iraq War and the "Just War" Tradition discusses NSS 2002, the national security statement that became the blueprint for the Bush Doctrine. It explains the differences and similarities between preventive and pre-emptive war and explores the administration's justification of the necessity of the March 2003 invasion. Finally, it analyzes the conduct of the war, the occupation, and the post-occupation phases of the conflict. In evaluating the Bush Doctrine, both as declared strategy and as implemented, Albert L. Weeks asks whether going it virtually alone in the global struggle against 21st-century terrorism should be incorporated permanently into American political and military policy. Answering no, he suggests an alternative to a doctrine that has isolated the United States and left the world divided.
Examines the difficulties in applying international law to recent armed conflicts known as 'new wars'.
In this paper, Michael Schmitt explores the legality of the attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the "jus ad bellum," that component of international law that governs when a State may resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Although States have conducted military counterterrorist operations in the past, the scale and scope of Operation Enduring Freedom may signal a sea change in strategies to defend against terrorism. This paper explores the normative limit on counterterrorist operations. Specifically, under what circumstances can a victim State react forcibly to an act of terrorism? Against whom? When? With what degree of severity? And for how long? The author contends that the attacks against Al Qaeda were legitimate exercises of the rights of individual and collective defense. They were necessary and proportional, and once the Taliban refused to comply with U.S. and United Nations demands to turn over the terrorists located in Afghanistan, it was legally appropriate for coalition forces to enter the country for the purpose of ending the ongoing Al Qaeda terrorist campaign. However, the attacks on the Taliban were less well grounded in traditional understandings of international law. Although the Taliban were clearly in violation of their legal obligation not to allow their territory to be used as a terrorist sanctuary, the author suggests that the degree and nature of the relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda may not have been such that the September 11 attacks could be attributed to the Taliban, thereby disallowing strikes against them in self-defense under traditional understandings of international law. Were the attacks, therefore, illegal? Not necessarily. Over the past half-century the international community's understanding of the international law governing the use of force by States has been continuously evolving. The author presents criteria likely to drive future assessments of the legality of counterterrorist operatio7.
States invariably justify using force extraterritorially by reference to their right of self-defence. In doing so, they accept that the exercise of this right is conditioned by the customary international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. However, these requirements are notorious for being normatively indeterminate and operationally complex. As a breach of either requirement renders ostensibly defensive action unlawful, increased determinacy regarding their scope and substance is crucial to how international law constrains military force. This book examines the conceptual meaning, content, and practical application of necessity and proportionality as they relate to the right of self-defence following the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945. It provides a coherent and up-to-date description of the applicable contemporary international law and proposes an analytical framework to guide its operation and appraisal. This book argues that necessity and proportionality are conceptually distinct and must be applied in the foregoing order to avoid an insufficient 'catch-all' description of legality or illegality. Necessity determines whether defensive force may be used to respond to an armed attack and where it must be directed. Proportionality governs how much total force is permissible and prohibits excessive responses. Both requirements are shown to apply on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of an armed conflict prompted by self-defence. Compliance with necessity and proportionality ensures that the purposes of self-defence are met, and nothing more, and that defensive force is not unduly disruptive to third party interests and to international peace and security.
This is an objective, strategic assessment of the role, usefulness, and logistical concerns posed by state-sponsored targeted killing and its overall efficiency in the current war on global terrorism.
There has been considerable debate in the international community as to the legality of the forceful actions in Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 under the United Nations Charter. There has been consensus, however, that the use of force in all these situations had to be both proportional and necessary. Against the background of these recent armed conflicts, this 2004 book offers the first comprehensive assessment of the twin requirements of proportionality and necessity as legal restraints on the forceful actions of States. It also provides a much-needed examination of the relationship between proportionality in the law on the use of force and international humanitarian law.
Aesthetic philosophy and the arts offer an innovative and attractive approach to enhancing international law in support of peace.