Suchergebnisse

This book comes out at a time of grave uncertainty about the content and the very existence of international legal restraints on the use of force, in the international community as well as among legal scholars. The time is therefore ripe for an in-depth analysis on the methodological issues which constitute the basic bricks on which the legal discourse about the state of the law must be built. By offering the result of an open and frank discussion about the methodology of determining the law on the use of force "at a time of perplexity", this timely book constitutes an invaluable contribution to legal analysis

This article attempts to demonstrate the connections between US executive war powers, US interpretations of the international law on the use of force, and the history of US war-making and war-fighting, both at home and abroad. It begins by discussing the status of presidential war powers in the US domestic context, before examining the centrality of national security in US political life. In arguing that the imperial character of US international legal interpretation and defence policy changes very little between Democratic and Republican administrations, regardless of the 'legality' of relevant actions subject to the international law on the use of force, this paper illustrates that US 'exceptionalism' is situated not in a sphere outside the international rule of law, but rather in an exceptional space within an international legal system that privileges the powerful.

There are few more controversial questions in international law than the proper limits of the right of self-defence. The rules are being challenged in the light of what are seen as new threats from terrorism and from the possession of weapons of mass destruction. The UN High-level Panel, in its report to the Secretary-General of 2004, concluded that in all cases relating to decisions to use military force 'we believe that the Charter of the United Nations, properly understood and applied, is equal to the task'.4 The Principles that follow are intended to provide a clear statement of the rules of international law 'properly understood' governing the use of force by states in self-defence.

"Examining the thematic intersection of law, technology and violence, this book explores cyber attacks against states and current international law on the use of force. The theory of information ethics is used to critique the law's conception of violence and to develop an informational approach as an alternative way to think about cyber attacks. Cyber attacks against states constitute a new form of violence in the information age, and international law on the use of force is limited in its capacity to regulate them. This book draws on Luciano Floridi's theory of information ethics to critique the narrow conception of violence embodied in the law and to develop an alternative way to think about cyber attacks, violence, and the state. The author uses three case studies – the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia, the Stuxnet incident involving Iran that was discovered in 2010, and the cyber attacks used as part of the Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election – to demonstrate that an informational approach offers a means to reimagine the state as an entity and cyber attacks as a form of violence against it."--

Political interest in territorial integrity and state sovereignty has always been to the fore in decisions made by governments faced with those who rebel. Thus, rebellion has been considered as an integral part of internal armed conflict rather than expanding it as part of external or international armed conflict. In this way, public international law has not only limited its scope of application but also failed to provide an effective legal framework for rebels who are not categorised as a party to international armed conflict. The enormous political support for "state sovereignty" and lack of necessary political will to recognise the right of rebellion at the international level have played a vital role in this failure. Attempts to overcome the failure have never been successful due to the fear of ruling authorities that recognition of the right of rebellion might provide legitimacy to opponents and put their authority at risk. The political power has always triumphed over the necessity to recognise the right of rebellion, and this has resulted in the underdevelopment of this area of law. Furthermore, the rebels have denied their accountability for asymmetrical use of force against state authorities based on their disadvantageous position under public international law. This unequal position between rebels and state authorities has created a "gap" in the current international legal framework.