Search

Within a broader discussion as to the place and role of self-defence within Rules of Engagement, this article seeks to describe some of the drafting and application issues that often present when employing Rules of Engagement – as a distillation of law, policy, operational context, and capability – to resolve, or to encapsulate the resolution achieved, in each mission-specific dialogue between operational context and the law of individual self-defence. To this end, the analysis will focus primarily (but not exclusively) upon the availability to military members of the 'right' of individual self-defence in otherwise law of armed conflict-governed operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the legality of Western states providing weapons to Ukraine. It focuses on five areas of international law: (1) the jus ad bellum ; (2) the law of neutrality; (3) international humanitarian law; (4) state responsibility for complicity in internationally wrongful acts; and (5) international criminal law. It concludes that weapons transfers likely violate the law of neutrality, entitling Russia to respond with countermeasures; that Russia can lawfully target transferred weapons under IHL; and that weapons transfers could lead to state and individual responsibility if evidence comes to light that the Ukrainian military is using weapons previously supplied by the West to commit war crimes. By contrast, providing weapons to Ukraine does not violate the jus ad bellum because they are in service of Ukraine's right of self-defence against Russia and does not make the supplying states co-belligerents in Russia's international armed conflict with Ukraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis , to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper purports to consider the question of whether it is conceivable that a people, who have been occupied and whose rights have been severely violated for several decades, may legitimately target civilians as a last resort. Looking at terrorist attacks, inter alia suicide attacks, in the Palestinian- Israeli conflict, this paper scrutinizes philosophical and legal attempts to justify the deliberate killing of civilians in order to compel the opponent into changing his politics. The paper draws a simplified picture of the historical developments in the region and does not provide an exhausting analysis of the situation but rather highlights single events in order to examine the legal framework against the background of the conflict. It intends to raise rather than answer questions and aims at making a contribution to this complex discussion. Looking at several philosophical justifications of terrorism, the paper then turns to the issues of self-determination, necessity and self-defence. As expected, the discussion reinforces the prohibition to target civilians as one of the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. However, very interesting aspects come into view when investigating the limits of philosophical theories and legal standards regarding the question of last resort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]