Download Free The Myth Of Preemptive Self Defense Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Myth Of Preemptive Self Defense and write the review.

Aesthetic philosophy and the arts offer an innovative and attractive approach to enhancing international law in support of peace.
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.
The war of June 1967 between Israel and Arab states was widely perceived as being forced on Israel to prevent the annihilation of its people by Arab armies hovering on its borders. Documents now declassified by key governments question this view. The UK, USSR, France and the USA all knew that the Arab states were not in attack mode and tried to dissuade Israel from attacking. In later years, this war was held up as a precedent allowing an attack on a state that is expected to attack. It has even been used to justify a pre-emptive assault on a state expected to attack well in the future. Given the lack of evidence that it was waged by Israel in anticipation of an attack by Arab states, the 1967 war can no longer serve as such a precedent. This book seeks to provide a corrective on the June 1967 war.
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.
Momentous events of recent years have shown the tremendous potential for developing and applying international law, even in the area that has always presented the greatest challenge to the rule of law—the use of force. The collaborative response by the United States, the Soviet Union, and other major powers to the Iraqi army's invasion and occupation of Kuwait showed unprecedented unity on the relevance of international law, its rules, and its enforceability through decisions of the UN Security Council. What explains this historic convergence of views? What differences remain about the legality of using armed force in the new international order that is emerging with the end of the Cold War? Law and Force in the New International Order offers a timely and comprehensive inquiry into the growing number of situations where the temptation or necessity to use military force confronts the tenets of international law. Distinguished American and Soviet legal scholars and practitioners explore the idea of the primacy of law over politics, the notion held by some that U.S. military force may be applied for the sake of democracy at a time when Moscow has rejected the Brezhnev Doctrine, the tension between collective security and collective self-defense during the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, and the prospects for the use of force being authorized by the United Nations and regional organizations. The contributors also examine the vexing legal issues raised by interventions to protect human rights, to overthrow "illegitimate" regimes, and to combat international terrorism and drug trafficking; the restraints on the use of force promised by new arms control agreements; and the future role of the World Court and other tribunals in preventing or settling disputes involving the threat or use of force.
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).
When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations.
This book deals with the identification of the aggressor state under International Law. This issue raises a deceptively easy question, that is, how does one distinguish the aggressor state from the victim state in situations involving the unilateral use of force? In a straightforward situation where state A attacks state B without any provocation, it is clear that state A is the aggressor. However, confusion begins to arise when state A first attacks state B as a form of 'anticipatory' self-defence; or when state A first attacks state B as a form of 'pre-emptive' self-defence; or when state A attacks state B in order to prevent state B from committing gross human rights atrocities against its own nationals. In all of these latter situations, the current rules are unclear and therefore either make it impossible to distinguish between the aggressor state and the victim state or give the aggressor state an unfair advantage over the victim state. This book utilizes general principles of Criminal Law in an attempt to tackle these questions and ultimately to devise a solution for distinguishing between the aggressor and the victim state regardless of the circumstances. Attention has also been given to the field of international relations.
The 2010 Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute empowered the International Criminal Court to prosecute the 'supreme crime' under international law: the crime of aggression. This landmark commentary provides the first analysis of the history, theory, legal interpretation and future of the crime of aggression. As well as explaining the positions of the main actors in the negotiations, the authoritative team of leading scholars and practitioners set out exactly how countries have themselves criminalized illegal war-making in domestic law and practice. In light of the anticipated activation of the Court's jurisdiction over this crime in 2017, this work offers, over two volumes, a comprehensive legal analysis of how to understand the material and mental elements of the crime of aggression as defined at Kampala. Alongside The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge, 2011), this commentary provides the definitive resource for anyone concerned with the illegal use of force.
The book argues that the concept of self-defense in Islamic and International law is compatible. Al-Qaeda's declaration of Jihad does not meet the Islamic legal test. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq does meet the international legal test.