Search

The article examines the legal implications of third-State military assistance in the context of Ukraine's self-defence against Russian aggression, focusing on the intersections of jus ad bellum, jus in bello , and the law of neutrality. It evaluates whether military aid, such as weapon provision and intelligence sharing, constitutes an indirect use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter or implicates assisting States as parties to the conflict. The article critiques expanding the notion of indirect force to State-to-State assistance and discusses the implications of collective self-defence and the law of neutrality in light of the UN Charter law and the peremptory norm of prohibition of the use of force, including aggression. The analysis concludes that lawful assistance to a State exercising self-defence does not breach international law, emphasizing the superiority of jus cogens norms over conflicting legal provisions, such as neutrality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The world stands at a juncture of violence where unipolarity ends and multipolarity begins. Manifestations of Western hegemonism, incremental NATO eastward expansion, the proliferation of US military bases overseas and the unilateral resort to force in ways that transgressed the constraints contained in Article 51 of the UN Charter were instrumental in provoking Russia into aggression. The US, as a pioneer in interpreting the right to self-defence widely to include anticipatory and pre-emptive self-defence, resulted in disastrous consequences in, inter alia, Iraq and Afghanistan. US hegemonism became offensive to the non-Western world. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, partially in reliance on collective self-defence in Article 51, partially on mutual assistance contained in Articles 4 common to the Treaties of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with both Donbas Republics and partially in defiance to the collective West, is geographically reciprocal. A synallagmatic wrong parallel to how the US acted in Iraq and Afghanistan on an ‘if you can break international law, then so can we’ basis.

Over the past decade, Australia has made significant reforms aimed at improving legal understandings of intimate partner violence, women’s use of force and their access to self-defence. While some courts have recognised the cumulative effects of coercive control and social entrapment on women’s responses, significant problems remain that deny many women access to justice. This article presents findings from a Victorian pilot study involving interviews with lawyers and experts who work with victim-survivors in these cases. Results revealed that a number of interviewees had limited knowledge of the family violence legislation. While psych-based expertise was seen as helpful, this tended to be in limited ways. Interviewees emphasised both the challenges accessing, and limited authority afforded, family violence experts/expertise by the courts. We conclude with recommendations for building the workforce and capacity of experts to work in this area and targeted training to skill up practitioners to more effectively utilise the family violence evidence provisions throughout the whole court process.

This study examined 32 Australian cases of women prosecuted for killing their abusive male partners in self-defence between 2010 and 2023. The objective was to track the legal pathways and identify salient factors influencing both acquittals and convictions. While most women received a manslaughter conviction by pleading guilty, nearly all cases that proceeded to trial resulted in no conviction. Key findings include: the utility of partial defences as a safety net for self-defence; evidence of overcharging; the identification of “evidentiary checkpoints” at trial to downgrade or withdraw murder charges; a checklist for legal counsel advising clients on the risks of trial; the advantage of private legal counsel in successful self-defence claims; and the systemic disadvantage of Indigenous women, highlighting the need for continued research. These findings underscore the intricate dynamics within the legal system when addressing cases of intimate partner violence, emphasising the need for comprehensive reforms and support structures.

Legal assessments required by the law of self-defence cannot be made in the absence of an accurate understanding of the violence a person faced before they used force. This article shows how prosecutors are making errors in their decisions to prosecute Aboriginal women who have killed an abusive partner, due to inaccurate understandings of the violence faced by defendants in these circumstances. We argue this error is a fundamental error of law, not one of fact and discretionary authority. It amounts to prosecutors making decisions to prosecute Aboriginal women (and accept guilty pleas) in the absence of a prima facie case. We argue that such decisions by prosecutors can be challenged via an application for stay of proceedings for abuse of process or a ‘no case’ submission.

This article recounts the campaign for justice for Helen Naslund, a Canadian woman who lived in rural Alberta when she killed her abusive husband Miles in 2011 as he slept. Rather than go to trial on self-defence, on the advice of counsel Helen pled guilty to manslaughter and then, consequent to a joint submission on sentencing made with the Crown, she was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2020, the longest sentence on record for such a woman in Canada. The contributors to Helen’s journey, including Helen herself, a Senator, an academic, an activist, a lawyer and a journalist, all describe the roles they played in supporting Helen’s successful appeal against sentence in 2022 and her release from prison in 2023.

The article discusses the case of R v Gill, where the appellant was appealing against his conviction of wounding with intent after stabbing a police officer during a raid at his home. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, stating that the trial judge's directions to the jury did not reflect the legislative protections afforded by s.76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The court emphasized that the appellant, as a householder, was entitled to benefit from the provisions of the law, regardless of his guilty plea to other criminal activities. The case highlights the importance of considering the subjective beliefs of individuals in cases of self-defence and reasonable force. [Extracted from the article]

Over the past decade, Australia has made significant reforms aimed at improving legal understandings of intimate partner violence, women's use of force and their access to self-defence. While some courts have recognised the cumulative effects of coercive control and social entrapment on women's responses, significant problems remain that deny many women access to justice. This article presents findings from a Victorian pilot study involving interviews with lawyers and experts who work with victim-survivors in these cases. Despite the existence of legislative provisions encouraging decision-makers to utilise the family violence evidence provisions and draw on a broader range of experts with family violence expertise, results revealed that a number of interviewees had limited knowledge of these provisions, and psych-based experts are still being used in the majority of cases. Surprisingly, while psych-based expertise was seen as helpful, interviewees were aware of the limits of this expertise with some seeing this as due to the limited authority afforded family violence experts/expertise by the courts. We conclude with recommendations for building the workforce and capacity of experts to work in this area and targeted training to skill up practitioners to more effectively utilise family violence experts in conjunction with the family violence evidence provisions throughout the whole court process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined 32 Australian cases of women prosecuted for killing their abusive male partners in self-defence between 2010 and 2023. The objective was to track the legal pathways and identify salient factors influencing both acquittals and convictions. While most women received a manslaughter conviction by pleading guilty, nearly all cases that proceeded to trial resulted in no conviction. Key findings include: the utility of partial defences as a safety net for self-defence; evidence of overcharging; the identification of "evidentiary checkpoints" at trial to downgrade or withdraw murder charges; a checklist for legal counsel advising clients on the risks of trial; the advantage of private legal counsel in successful self-defence claims; and the systemic disadvantage of Indigenous women, highlighting the need for continued research. These findings underscore the intricate dynamics within the legal system when addressing cases of intimate partner violence, emphasising the need for comprehensive reforms and support structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal assessments required by the law of self-defence cannot be made in the absence of an accurate understanding of the violence a person faced before they used force. This article shows how prosecutors are making errors in their decisions to prosecute Aboriginal women who have killed an abusive partner, due to inaccurate understandings of the violence faced by defendants in these circumstances. We argue this error is a fundamental error of law, not one of fact and discretionary authority. It amounts to prosecutors making decisions to prosecute Aboriginal women (and accept guilty pleas) in the absence of a prima facie case. We argue that such decisions by prosecutors can be challenged via an application for stay of proceedings for abuse of process or a 'no case' submission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article recounts the campaign for justice for Helen Naslund, a Canadian woman who lived in rural Alberta when she killed her abusive husband Miles in 2011 as he slept. Rather than go to trial on self-defence, on the advice of counsel Helen pled guilty to manslaughter. Then, consequent to a joint submission on sentencing made with the Crown, she was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2020, the longest sentence on record for such a woman in Canada. The contributors to Helen's journey, including Helen herself, a Senator, an academic, an activist, a lawyer and a journalist, all describe the roles they played in supporting Helen's successful appeal against sentence in 2022 and her release from prison in 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Russian Empire, an autocratic state with strong remnants of feudal caste law, was based on a legal system that aimed to intimidate the citizenry in order to defend and preserve the existing anachronistic social order. Various specialized state institutions were responsible for the security of the regime and internal order, among which the armed forces. The tsarist authorities widely used military units in the fight against mass demonstrations and the preservation of public order. In this paper, based on the vast new documentary material from the national archives of the Republic of Moldova, we will demonstrate the actions of the military units in order to save the Jewish population of Bessarabia during the pogroms of 1905 and 1907. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

NATO is looking at how to implement, in practice, its December 2019 declaration of space as an operational domain. As part of this effort, Allies will be reflecting on various policy and legal issues, including the applicability of the Washington Treaty's Article 5 and questions surrounding the attribution of hostile acts in space. The unique characteristics of outer space present potential challenges for the application of some of NATO's traditional principles. Questions remain outstanding on how collective self-defence might be invoked in the event of a hostile space activity that impacts one or more Allies. In addition, difficulties attributing hostile space acts, similar to those that exist in the cyber domain, present real challenges for a strong, coordinated Alliance response according to existed international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the responses of two maize hybrids, Armagnac and Desszert R-78, to exogenous ethylene and mechanical damage as stress treatments. The amounts of benzoxazinoids (BXDs) and malondialdehyde (MDA) and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) were examined 2 and 4 h after ethylene and mechanical damage treatments as well as at the age of 24 days, and the activity of genes encoding BXD biosynthesis and other stress-related genes was measured in shoots. In both hybrids, mechanical damage upregulated the genes responsible for the synthesis of BXDs (BX8 and BX9), the AOC1 gene encoding jasmonate, and the DEH gene encoding lipid biosynthesis enzymes. Significant genotype differences were found in the amounts of BXDs. In the case of the Desszert R-78 hybrid, the BXDs level was increased at 4 h after stress treatments compared to the control. In the case of the Armagnac hybrid, the amount of BXDs decreased in response to ethylene compared to the control. The absence/presence of a correlation between the activity of genes encoding BXDs and the amount of BXDs is thought to be due to the different rate/speed of the response in the two hybrids. Mechanical damage and ethylene treatments did not significantly affect the activities of SOD and CAT as well as the amount of MDA during the four-hour study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last few years Russia has repeatedly evoked the doctrine of the protection of nationals abroad in all cases when it has resorted to the use of force. Russia's invocation of this doctrine has been harshly criticized, mainly because it has been deemed as a neo-hegemonic interpretation thereof. That is, several deprecating remarks over Russia's policy have been made, given that it has treated the doctrine as a tool to achieve its neo-imperialistic goals, in essence repudiating all the legal developments that had taken place from 1945 onwards. The invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 further resulting in Crimea's illegal annexation, as well as the 2022 ongoing war against it, all relied more or less on the alleged danger to Russian nationals in the invaded areas. This paper will explore Russia's invocation of the doctrine in the ongoing war against Ukraine. It will examine whether there are sufficient legal bases on these grounds, and it will demonstrate how Russia disregards the doctrine's interpretation after the entry into force of the UN Charter promoting a hegemonic reading thereof. It will argue that the state's policy shows the emergence of a new pattern regarding the forcible protection of its nationals abroad, which has endured for the last two decades. Finally, it will propose that continuity in such state practice is a constant threat to the former Soviet Union countries' sovereignty, while it questions the very notion of their citizens' nationality rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of self-determination is at the centre of the Russian Federation's (Russia's) 'justifications' for using force against Ukraine and supporting the separatist entities in its eastern provinces, as demonstrated by official statements of Russia's representatives and the oral and written submissions to the inter-state proceedings on the application of the Genocide Convention before the International Court of Justice (Ukraine v. Russia). In particular, Russia construes self-defence as an exercise of remedial self-determination, supporting territorial separation and the creation of satellite states or their annexation by the Federation. This is in continuity with Russia's policies and argumentations utilised in other contexts such as Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These cases differ in their context and history but share the same remedial approach to external self-determination as a purported justification to use force. This is also in partial continuity with the tradition of Soviet approaches to self-determination. Like other states' self-indulgent 'exceptionalism' in international law, Russia's cherry-picking application of self-determination reveals its instrumental usage to camouflage imperialistic aggression and expansionistic ambitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most invoked justification for use of military force is the 'inherent right' to self-defence, enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This article examines efforts over the past two decades to reshape the scope of this right, arguing that attempts to permit defensive force in a wider range of situations than previously are symptomatic of structural bias that favours militarily powerful States more able and willing to use force. Building from TWAIL and feminist insights, the article reveals trends in instrumentalization and dominance of the law on self-defence, particularly within construction of customary international law, which operate to the detriment of populations living in areas converted into conflict zones. The analysis reinforces the imperative to explicitly acknowledge issues with universality and impartiality within the discussion on scope of self-defence, as well as consider alternative approaches to redressing structural bias and restricting the imbalanced impacts of defensive force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We typically see child soldiers as not morally responsible because of their age and/or because they are victims of adult exploitation. Work on child soldiers and their moral responsibility is relatively sparse within just war thinking and political philosophy (Thomason in Ethical Theory Moral Pract, 19:115–127, 2016a; Thomason in Seeing child soldiers as morally compromised warriors [Online]. The Critique. Available: http://www.thecritique.com/articles/seeing-child-soldiers-as-morally-compromised-warriors/ [Accessed 2 April 2020], 2016b), and instead focuses mostly on whether child soldiers are liable to attack (McMahan, in Gates, Reich (eds) Child soldiers in the age of fractured states, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, 2010; Vaha in J Military Ethics, 10:36–51, 2011). This paper brings these two areas together. Many of us have the intuition that combatants should exercise at least some constraint when fighting against child soldiers. I will argue that, contra McMahan (2010), exercising restraint in this way is a requirement of justice. I will argue that agents can be more or less liable to attack (liability to attack is on a spectrum) in defensive killing cases depending on how morally responsible they are for the threat they cause. I will outline how, whilst child soldiers are not wholly responsible for the threat they cause to combatants, their responsibility is also not completely diminished. I will argue that child soldiers are therefore liable to attack, but to a lesser extent than fully responsible agents. I will show that combatants fighting against child soldiers are therefore required, as a matter of justice, to use the most proportionate method of attack which may not always be to kill the child soldier. I will conclude that combatants are therefore required, as a matter of justice, to exercise a degree of restraint when fighting against child soldiers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines some of the main arguments relating to the applicability and relevance of the right of self-defence to the ongoing war in Gaza. It starts by discussing the question whether Israel has the right to invoke self-defence in response to the attack by Hamas of 7 October 2023. Questions examined include the relevance of the Wall advisory opinion of 2004 to the invocation of self-defence, the status of Gaza as occupied territory in October 2007 and the applicability of self-defence to attacks by non-State actors. It then goes on to discuss how the principles of necessity and proportionality in the context of the exercise of self-defence regulate the application of force and whether Israel's conduct of the war meets those criteria and focuses particular attention on the impact of obstruction of relief supplies on the right of self-defence. This piece was submitted in May 2024 and does not examine or discuss events that have occurred since then. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This issue of the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy has its origins in an inspiring and successful international workshop held at Deakin University Downtown in February 2023 (Successful Strategies for Improving Access to Justice for Women Who Kill Their Abusers). It is in this context that the international workshop drew together practitioners (practising lawyers, family violence experts, psych- experts) and researchers from a range of international jurisdictions (England, Scotland, New Zealand, Canada, United States, Germany and Australia) and disciplines (criminology, law, socio-legal studies, gender studies, Māori health and Indigenous studies and education), to share insights about their efforts to improve legal understandings of women’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV), their use of fatal force against an abusive partner and their self-defence claims. Contributors to this special issue highlight, for example, the power of positive collaboration between academics, activists, lawyers, journalists and the women themselves. They identify strategies to challenge prosecutors’ decisions to prosecute Aboriginal women in the absence of evidence capable of disproving self-defence, and to identify key evidentiary checkpoints to enhance women’s access to self-defence and improve their chances of acquittal. They argue for the need to build the workforce and capacity of experts with frontline experience in IPV, emphasise the importance of understanding IPV through the lens of social entrapment, and propose targeted training to skill up practitioners to more effectively utilise the family violence evidence provisions available in some jurisdictions throughout the whole court process. Finally, they explore potential avenues for further reform drawing on successes and failures in advocacy and litigation across international jurisdictions.

I argue that lying in business negotiations is pro tanto wrong and no less wrong than lying in other contexts. First, I assert that lying in general is pro tanto wrong. Then, I examine and refute five arguments to the effect that lying in a business context is less wrong than lying in other contexts. The common thought behind these arguments—based on consent, self-defence, the "greater good," fiduciary duty, and practicality—is that the particular circumstances which are characteristic of business negotiations are such that the wrongness of lying is either mitigated or eliminated completely. I argue that all these "special exemption" arguments fail. I conclude that, in the absence of a credible argument to the contrary, the same moral constraints must apply to lying in business negotiations as apply to lying in other contexts. Furthermore, I show that for the negotiator, there are real practical benefits from not lying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a case where the defendant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent but claimed self-defense. The defendant had PTSD from a previous incident, which was not considered during the trial. The court ruled that the expert evidence on PTSD was not sufficiently reliable to be admitted, leading to questions about the meaning of reliability in legal contexts. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence being helpful to the jury and raised concerns about the trial's handling of the defendant's mental state. [Extracted from the article]

Significant strides have been made in the law's recognition of harms arising from domestic abuse. In England and Wales, the Serious Crimes Act 2015, and in Scotland, the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, have supported a more holistic understanding of the dynamics of abuse and the means by which coercion and control are deployed to cement and supplant perpetrators' violence. In this article, we explore what the introduction of these offences means in other situations where questions regarding the impact of abuse upon victims' agency arise: specifically, where victims commit an offence that might have been compelled by abusive behaviour or take their own lives in contexts that might indicate perpetrators' liability for suicide. In particular, drawing on interviews with professionals across both jurisdictions, we highlight the precarity of recognition of the effects of coercive control and the need to engage in more complicated discussions about when and why context matters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strength training is a fundamental component of physical training activities targeting the employees of the Romanian Police and Local Police. Strength, speed and endurance are basic physical qualities involved in the proper conduct of police missions. As gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, police officers are usually the first to encounter crime victims. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a physical training program in terms of enhancing strength and speed among local police officers. Ten local police members participated in the study, which examines how a three-month physical training program, carried out in 2021, can improve muscle strength and running speed (50 meters). A paired sample t-test was used to assess the differences between the initial and final evaluations. The results indicated significant improvements - following the course of the educational curriculum - in the field of general physical training/in the field of self-defence, related to the initial training course of local police officers. Improvements were recorded in the values of all investigated indicators, including muscle mass, punching strength, and 50-meter running speed. The study discusses the implications, emphasizing that strength should be periodically trained, and force used gradually - and only when necessary - to prevent illegal actions that could endanger the lives or safety of police officers or others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can 'self-defence' be justified in counterinsurgency? Drawing on several existing studies, this article examined the operationalisation and justification of self-defence by the Civilian Joint Taskforce (CJTF) in countering the insurgent activities of Boko Haram in the north-eastern region of Nigeria. Drawing on academic and non-academic documents as well as key informant interviews, the article concluded that while the CJTF has made an important contribution to countering the Boko Haram menace, challenges related to gross human rights violations, members of the CJTF becoming tools and stooges of religious and political elite to settle scores, and lack of clear rules of engagement and effective state support have hampered its effective counter-insurgency efforts in the North-East. To overcome this challenge, the CJTF should, among other things, be perceived as professional and not engage in actions that are outside its mandate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article marks the launch of the new 'Jus ad bellum Series' in the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, designed to explore the evolving state practice in the jus ad bellum regime. This inaugural piece explores the evolving state practice in relation to self-defence against armed non-state actors (ANSAs), focusing specifically on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The article is structured into four key sections: first, the interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter; second, the contentious issue of anticipatory self-defence, focusing on how recent state practice has reshaped the concept of imminence in response to modern security threats; third, the criteria of necessity and proportionality; finally, the 'unwilling or unable' doctrine. The analysis of Article 51's interpretation reveals significant variation in how states frame their self-defence claims, reflecting the complexity of applying traditional jus ad bellum rules to contemporary security threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "Journal on the Use of Force & International Law" published a digest of state practices from January to June 2024, covering various regions and topics. The document discusses international conflicts and tensions, focusing on self-defence claims and military actions in different regions. It includes discussions on Russian aggression against Ukraine, cyber activities in Europe, accusations of aggression in Africa, and self-defence claims by the US and UK in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria. The text also addresses tensions between China and Taiwan, Iran and Pakistan, and Guyana and Venezuela, as well as cyber operations, outer space security, and Mexico's call for transparency in self-defence reporting. [Extracted from the article]

For many writers, States have a customary law right to self-defensive force before an attack has occurred. The self-defence doctrines of anticipatory, pre-emptive and preventive self-defence all purport to condition the resort to pre-attack self-defensive force in various ways. However, these doctrines are marred by acute terminological ambiguities. To help resolve this ambiguity, this article explores the utility of a risk-based framework for understanding the content of each doctrine and the points of correspondence and disagreement between them. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of literature published from 1945 to 2023, analysing the descriptions and discussions of each doctrine in-depth through the lens of a risk-based framework to categorise the variables that condition the resort to force. Even when analysed in this manner, the article finds that the three self-defence doctrines struggle to be meaningfully differentiated. If unresolved, this ambiguity may undermine efforts at conflict mitigation and de-escalation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that a use of force which deprives a self-determination entity ('SDE') of its right to self-determination is prohibited under both Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law, even if there may not be sufficient practice accepted as law (opinio juris) to establish that such forcible deprivation of an SDE's right to self-determination constitutes an armed attack that entitles the SDE to the right of self-defence. The article also argues that a State's use of force to occupy or subjugate an SDE to permanently prevent an armed attack from emanating from that SDE does not qualify as lawful self-defence in the absence of an actual or imminent armed attack. Furthermore, a State's use of force against attacks emanating from an SDE that could have been averted by the State's relinquishing control over the SDE does not satisfy the necessity requirement to qualify as lawful self-defence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors of this publication have explored the importance of justifying fear and agitation underpinning the transgression of necessary self-defence. According to Article 25 § 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code, they identified five scenarios, differing in how a perpetrator's mental state is determined, affecting the criminal law consequences of unlawfully infringing on or exposing the aggressor's legal interests. The authors validated the preliminary hypothesis that the legislator assumed legitimate self-defence excess results from fear or agitation due to the circumstances of the assault, necessitating procedural confirmation. Their occurrence leads to the defender's impunity, regardless of the type of legal interests infringed and the extent of legitimate self-defence excess. A shortfall in the mental state circumstances of a defender, as referred to in Article 25 § 3 of the Criminal Code in a specific factual state, opens the possibility of applying a general, complementary provision, i.e., Article 25 § 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Law Enforcement / Magyar Rendészet is the property of National University of Public Service and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The ICJ’s Order on provisional measures in the case of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) raised a lot of interest, mainly concerning the ceasefire requested by South Africa. After the Order was delivered, a general feeling of disappointment seems to have taken hold. Yet the Court’s decision was not entirely unexpected, given the Court’s practice as well as the particularities and complexities of the case.In this work, we critically analyse the path followed by the Court leading to the rendering of its provisional measures. We pay particular attention to the requirements to be met: prima faciejurisdiction; the plausibility of the rights and its link with the requested measures; and irreparable prejudice and urgency. This editorial seeks to clarify the Court’s position and analysis, relating it to other orders so as to understand the provisional measures delivered.This case is not merely a legal issue. It is one of social interest. And too much was expected of the Court in the wake of the extraordinary provisional measures rendered in Ukraine v. Russian Federation. In this latter case, however, the unmentioned issue of self-defence played an essential role, permeating the whole process and limiting the extent of the measures. LA PROVIDENCIA DEL TIJ SOBRE MEDIDAS PROVISIONALES DE ENERO DE 2024 EN SUDÁFRICA CONTRA ISRAEL SOBRE EL CASO DE GENOCIDIO: UNA DECISIÓN ESPERADA PERO DECEPCIONANTE La Providencia del Tribunal Internacional de Justicia sobre medidas provisionales en el caso de Aplicación de la Convención para la Prevención y la Sanción del Delito de Genocidio en la Franja de Gaza (Sudáfrica contra Israel), ha suscitado un gran interés, principalmente en relación con el alto el fuego solicitado por Sudáfrica. Tras la publicación de la Providencia, parece haberse instalado en algunos un sentimiento general de decepción, pero la decisión del Tribunal no difiere mucho de lo que cabría esperar, dada la práctica del Tribunal, y las particularidades y complejidades del caso.Este trabajo pretende ofrecer un análisis crítico del camino seguido por el Tribunal para dictar su providencia de medidas provisionales, prestando especial atención a los requisitos que deben ser cumplidos: la competencia prima facie, la plausibilidad de los derechos y su vinculación con las medidas solicitadas, y el perjuicio irreparable y la urgencia. Este editorial pretende aclarar la posición y el análisis del Tribunal, relacionándolo con otras órdenes a fin de entender las medidas provisionales adoptadas. Este caso no versa solo sobre una mera cuestión jurídica, sino que es un caso de interés social, esperándose demasiado del Tribunal tras las extraordinarias medidas provisionales dictadas en el caso de Ucrania contra la Federación Rusa. Sin embargo, en este caso, la cuestión no mencionada de la legítima defensa jugó un papel esencial, impregnando todo el procedimiento y limitando la extensión de las medidas. L’ORDONNANCE DE LA CIJ SUR MESURES PROVISOIRES DE JANVIER 2024 EN AFRIQUE DU SUD C. ISRAËL DANS L’AFFAIRE DE GÉNOCIDE : UNE DÉCISION ATTENDUE MAIS DÉCEVANTE L’ordonnance de la Cour sur les mesures conservatoires dans l’affaire concernant l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide dans la bande de Gaza (Afrique du Sud c. Israël) a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt, notamment en ce qui concerne le cessez-le-feu demandé par l’Afrique du Sud. Un sentiment général de déception a pu être aperçu suite à la publication de cette ordonnance. Cependant, on pourrait bien s’atteindre à cette décission, compte tenu de la pratique préalable de la Cour et des particularités et complexité de l’affaire.Ce travail offre un analyse critique du parcours suivi par la Cour pour rendre ses mesures provisoires et fait attention aux exigences qu’ y doivent être satisfaites: d’abord, la compétence prima facie; ensuite, la plausibilité des droits et leur lien avec les mesures demandées; enfin, la situation d’urgence et le risque d’un préjudice irreparable. Cet éditorial vise aussi à expliquer la position et l’analyse de la Cour d’après d’autres ordonnances préalables, pour comprendre ainsi les mesures provisoires rendues dans cette affaire.D’autre part, l’affaire nous enmène non seulement à une question juridique, mais aussi à une question d’intérêt social. Ainsi, après les mesures provisoires extraordinaires rendues dans l’affaire Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie, Il s’attendait beaucoup de la Cour. Cependant, dans ce cas, la question non mentionnée de la légitime défense a joué un rôle essentiel, present tout au long de la procédure, limitant l’étendue des mesures adoptées.

The purpose of this essay/editorial - closed on 8 January 2024 - is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has lasted at least seventy-five years, with the creation of the state of Israel, the first Arab-Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self-defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide -, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context.This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary-General.In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there are also briefly discussed the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six-Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two-State solution.The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRA EN GAZA Y EL CONFLICTO PALESTINO-ISRAELÍ: UN PUNTO DE INFLEXIÓN EN MEDIO DE UN CICLO SIN FIN DE VIOLENCIA El objeto de este ensayo/editorial -que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024- es el de formular de la manera más completa posible -aunque resulte necesariamente provisional- una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino-israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe-israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico-internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico-internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional -crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio-, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino-israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico-político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución bieestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial - qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 - est de formuler aussi complètement que possible - bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire - une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino-israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante-quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo-arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico-internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies.À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale - crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide -, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico-politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

El objeto de este ensayo/editorial –que se ha cerrado el 8 de enero de 2024– es el de formular de la manera más completa posible –aunque resulte necesariamente provisional– una aproximación desde la perspectiva del Derecho Internacional a la guerra en Gaza iniciada hace poco más de tres meses y, en general, al conflicto palestino–israelí que perdura, como mínimo, desde hace más de setenta y cinco años, con la creación del Estado de Israel, la primera guerra árabe–israelí y la Nakba a la que fue abocado el pueblo palestino. Es decir, se trata de una somera aproximación jurídico–internacional a un momento de crisis y de agudización de un conflicto histórico, que configura en estos meses un auténtico punto de inflexión en el ciclo sin fin de violencia que asola la región desde hace décadas.A estos efectos, en este ensayo se abordan diversas cuestiones de relevancia jurídico–internacional en relación con la actual guerra en Gaza, como la conceptualización del terrorismo internacional; la justificación de la legítima defensa usada por Israel y, en especial, las condiciones que exige el Derecho Internacional para su ejercicio; así como la posible comisión de graves crímenes de trascendencia internacional –crímenes de guerra, crímenes contra la humanidad y genocidio–, la aplicabilidad del Derecho Internacional Humanitario y la exigencia de responsabilidad penal individual en este contexto. También se analiza en este ensayo la reacción de la comunidad internacional organizada en las Naciones Unidas ante la actual guerra en Gaza y, por tanto, se presenta la insuficiente actuación del Consejo de Seguridad a lo largo de estos meses de crisis aguda, la mayoritaria reacción de la Asamblea General pidiendo un cese de las hostilidades y los llamamientos humanitarios formulados vana y reiteradamente por su Secretario General. Para situar la fase actual de crisis en la perspectiva del conflicto palestino–israelí se aborda asimismo, sumariamente, su contexto histórico–político, en particular con los resultados de la ocupación de territorios en la guerra de los Seis Días de1967; la constante posición de la Asamblea General sobre la cuestión Palestina; la acción de las Naciones Unidas en relación con los derechos humanos en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados; así como la actuación del Consejo de Seguridad respecto de estos Territorios y las iniciativas de paz propuestas especialmente en relación con la solución biestatal. Por último, se formulan unas consideraciones finales y un epílogo en el que, atendiendo a la actual catástrofe humanitaria y a la perdurabilidad del conflicto, se formula un llamamiento para el cese inmediato de las hostilidades y la liberación de los rehenes y para que la actual fase del conflicto se convierta en un genuino punto de inflexión que pueda propiciar una oportunidad para la paz en la región. THE WAR IN GAZA AND THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT: A TURNING POINT IN THE MIDST OF AN ENDLESS CYCLE OF VIOLENCE The purpose of this essay/editorial – closed on 8 January 2024 – is to formulate as fully as possible, although necessarily provisional, an approach from the perspective of International Law to the war in Gaza that began a little over three months ago, and more generally to the Palestinian– Israeli conflict that has lasted at least seventy–five years, with the creation of the State of Israel, the first Arab–Israeli war and the Nakba to which the Palestinian people have been condemned. In other words, this is a brief international legal approach to a moment of crisis and intensification of a historic conflict that, in these months, has been a real turning point in the endless cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades.To this end, this essay addresses various issues of international legal relevance in relation to the current war in Gaza, such as the conceptualisation of international terrorism; the justification of legitimate self–defence used by Israel and, in particular, the conditions required by International Law for its exercise; as well as the possible commission of serious crimes of international concern – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide –, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and the call for individual criminal responsibility in this context. This essay also analyses the response of the international community organized in the United Nations to the current war in Gaza, highlighting the insufficient action of the Security Council during these months of acute crisis, the majority reaction of the General Assembly calling for a cessation of hostilities, and the repeated and futile humanitarian appeals made by its Secretary–General. In order to place the current crisis in the perspective of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the historical and political context, in particular the results of the occupation of territories in the Six–Day War of 1967, the consistent position of the General Assembly on the Palestinian question, the United Nations action on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the Security Council’s action on these Territories and the proposed peace initiatives, in particular with regard to the two–State solution, are also briefly discussed. The essay concludes with concluding remarks and an epilogue where, in view of the current humanitarian catastrophe and the protracted nature of the conflict, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and the release of hostages, and for the current phase of the conflict to become a genuine turning point that can be grasped as an opportunity for peace in the region. LA GUERRE À GAZA ET LE CONFLIT PALESTINO-ISRAÉLIEN : UN TOURNANT AU MILIEU D’UN CYCLE DE VIOLENCE SANS FIN Le but de cet essai/éditorial – qui s’est achevé le 8 janvier 2024 – est de formuler aussi complètement que possible – bien qu’il soit nécessairement provisoire – une approche du point de vue du Droit International de la guerre à Gaza qui a commencé il y a un peu plus de trois mois et, en général, du conflit palestino–israélien qui dure depuis au moins soixante–quinze ans, avec la création de l’État d’Israël, la première guerre israélo–arabe et la Nakba à laquelle le peuple palestinien a été contraint. En d’autres termes, il s’agit d’une brève approche juridico–internationale d’un moment de crise et de l’intensification d’un conflit historique qui, en ces mois, constitue un véritable tournant dans le cycle sans fin de la violence qui sévit dans la région depuis des décennies. À cette fin, cet essai aborde diverses questions de Droit International en rapport avec la guerre actuelle à Gaza, telles que la conceptualisation du terrorisme international, la justification de la légitime défense utilisée par Israël et, en particulier, les conditions requises par le Droit International pour son exercice, ainsi que la commission éventuelle de crimes graves de portée internationale – crimes de guerre, crimes contre l’humanité et génocide –, l’applicabilité du Droit International Humanitaire et l’exigence de responsabilité pénale individuelle dans ce contexte. Cet essai analyse également la réaction de la communauté internationale organisée au sein des Nations unies à la guerre actuelle à Gaza et présente donc l’action insuffisante du Conseil de sécurité tout au long de ces mois de crise aiguë, la réaction majoritaire de l’Assemblée générale appelant à la cessation des hostilités et les appels humanitaires lancés à maintes reprises et en vain par son secrétaire général. Afin de replacer la phase de crise actuelle dans la perspective du conflit palestino-israélien, sont également brièvement évoqués le contexte historico–politique, en particulier les résultats de l’occupation des territoires lors de la guerre des six jours de 1967, la position constante de l’Assemblée générale sur la question palestinienne, l’action des Nations unies en matière de droits de l’homme dans les Territoires Palestiniens Occupés, ainsi que l’action du Conseil de sécurité sur ces Territoires et les initiatives de paix proposées, notamment en ce qui concerne la solution à deux États. L’essai se termine par quelques considérations finales et par un épilogue dans lequel, compte tenu de la catastrophe humanitaire actuelle et de la durée du conflit, un appel est lancé en faveur d’une cessation immédiate des hostilités et de la libération des otages, et pour que la phase actuelle du conflit devienne un véritable tournant qui pourrait offrir une occasion de paix dans la région.

La emergencia del Dáesh promovió que algunos Estados relanzaran la doctrina que facultaría a aplicar la legítima defensa contra un actor no estatal cuando el Estado en el que se encuentra el grupo no quiere o no tiene la capacidad de combatirlo. Mediante el uso de una metodología jurídica clásica que estudia las fuentes del Derecho internacional, la jurisprudencia y las aportaciones doctrinales más relevantes con un enfoque socio-jurídico crítico analizamos la licitud de esta doctrina y sus implicaciones en la comprensión del Derecho internacional. Así, determinaremos que se trata de una doctrina ambigua y arbitraria que no cuenta con el respaldo estatal suficiente para conformarse como derecho y que contraviene el principio de integridad territorial y la soberanía estatal, así como las normas de responsabilidad internacional del Estado. La tesis refleja la pretensión de impulsar un Derecho internacional hegemónico. The emergence of Daesh prompted some States to relaunch the doctrine that would allow the application of self-defence against a non-State actor when the State in which the group is located is unwilling or unable to combat it. Using a classical legal methodology that studies the sources of international law, jurisprudence and the most relevant doctrinal contributions with a critical socio-legal approach, we analyse the lawfulness of this doctrine and its implications in the understanding of international law. We will determine that it is an ambiguous and arbitrary doctrine that does not have sufficient state support to become law and that contravenes the principle of territorial integrity and state sovereignty, as well as the rules of international responsibility of the state. The thesis reflects the pretension of promoting a hegemonic international law.

The implication of partial defence of loss of control in the criminal system of England is that the accused loses his or her self-control, because of fear or heat of passion resulting from provocative act of victim, and killing a person. Although the loss of control has an important role in this defence and must be proven objectively and subjectively but the unjust act of victim is one of the two essential requirements of this defence. With respect to the important effect of victim in this defence, we did a comparative study on the partial defence of loss of control and self-defence in Iranian legal system. By explaining and distinguishing several situations witch deems these defences overlapped, we express some cases can only be subject to the partial daefence of loss of control. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that due to acceptance of the self-defense, it is not necessary to recognize the partial defence of loss of control in penal code. Actually we, by using the descriptive-analytical method based on library sources, describing and analyzing laws, realized these two defences are distinguished in their area, nature, affection and requirements. Eventually this article attempts to introduce a draft of the defence of loss of control compatible with bases of Iranian legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper elucidates the rights violations caused by mass formal schooling systems and explores what students may do about them. Students have rights not to be harmed and rights to liberty (not to be oppressed), as well as attendant rights to (proportionately) defend their rights if necessary. For some time now, education has been dominated by mass formal schooling systems that harm and oppress many students. Such harm and oppression violate those students' rights not to be harmed or oppressed, which may justify student nonviolent defensive (or rights-protecting) action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the legality of the use of defensive force by a state against terrorists on the territory of a third state from where terrorists launched the attack. It first considers justifications based on attribution and on the "unable and unwilling" test. It concludes that these constructions leave many legal, factual, and conceptual questions unsettled. It thus goes on to put forward a construction based on the two facets of self-defence: a primary rule and substantive right which justifies the use of force against terrorist attacks; and a circumstance precluding wrongfulness (CPW) which excuses responsibility for the incidental breach of the territorial state's sovereignty. The article then argues that the territorial state can claim compensation for any material loss caused by the self-defence action. This construction offers a more coherent understanding of the operation of self-defence and a stronger legal basis for using defensive force against terrorists on the territory of third states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Electrónica de Derecho Internacional Contemporáneo is the property of Universidad Nacional de La Plata and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In response to unceasing rates of sexual assault, and the failure of statutory interventions to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence, several prevention strategies have emerged. Over the past fifty years, initiatives have included awareness raising campaigns, provision of self-defence training, promotion of rape alarms, and education-based efforts in the form of bystander intervention and consent training workshops aimed at encouraging prosocial action to reduce sexual violence. More recently, a striking array of technologies has emerged claiming the capacity to prevent or mitigate the risk of sexual violence including apps that harness the communication functions of smart technology and a variety of 'wearables' designed to protect the body from assault or repel a would-be assailant. In this paper we analyse these prevention initiatives in the modern period, demonstrating that what is striking about the majority is the relative absence of the perpetrator in both design and endorsement. Where an assailant is alluded to, this 'imagined perpetrator' tends to reflect stereotypical constructions of how sexual violence occurs and who commits it. The consequence of such representations is that many prevention efforts place responsibility onto potential victims to protect themselves, contributing further to widespread misunderstandings about the realities of rape and rapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a structural analysis of Cicero's Orator , sections 140–8. Situating Cicero's defence of a form of educational activity in relation to his earlier denials that he is teaching anything, the article proposes an explanation for Cicero's apparent reversal of position rooted in status theory, the conceptual framework developed by Greek and Roman rhetorical theorists for schematizing the points at issue in a case and the corresponding lines of approach that a defender should take. Understanding the status -inspired organization of Cicero's self-defence affords readers smoother passage through a text that is often difficult and obscure. Furthermore, this analysis shows how Cicero deploys rhetorical techniques in defence of his educational endeavours both to support his claim to continued relevance and to exemplify the versatility of the ideal orator whom he portrays in the Orator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The actual problems of the protection of civil rights and responsibility in the implementation of the protective function of civil law are considered. Forms of protective relations are proposed to be divided into four types: penal, restorative, preventive and provisional. The penal form is different in that it implements liability measures. Adverse property impact on the offender is a qualifying sign of responsibility and in most cases allows one to distinguish between liability measures from other coercive measures available in the arsenal of civil law. It is characterized by the imposition on the offender of certain property deprivations, encumbrances. The restorative form is characterized by the application of protective measures. Civil law protection measures are characterized by the fact that in terms of content they are not non-equivalent property deprivation and are applied forcibly or are carried out voluntarily in the form of restoring the situation that existed before the violation, or suppressing actions that violate the right (or threaten to violate it), or recognize subjective right (or fact). The preventive form is aimed at the implementation of self-defense measures. The main feature of self-defense measures is their compensatory nature. It is expressed in the fact that self-defence measures are applied in case of violation of a subjective civil right (or in case of a threat of its violation) in order to protect the violated right. In connection with these features, self-defense is classified as a means of protecting civil law. Provisional form - measures of an operational nature, are applied extrajudicially unilaterally, regardless of the consent of the offender to their implementation (that is, they are coercive measures). Operational measures are characterized by a security feature, which is expressed in stimulating the participants in civil circulation to the proper fulfillment of obligations.