Introduction

Q3 Social Sciences
T. Ruys
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2020.1783867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the end of the Cold War, jus ad bellum debates have focused by and large on two main bones of contention. First, the vexing issue of the permissibility of unilateral humanitarian intervention has surfaced repeatedly in the wake of humanitarian crises in Kosovo, Syria and elsewhere. Second, with the advance of transnational terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ‘Islamic State’ – and, to lesser extent, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – the outer boundaries of the right of self-defence have been the subject of ample discussion. The legality of self-defence against attacks by non-state actors in particular has attracted enormous attention among states and international lawyers in the post 9/11 era. By contrast, far less attention has been paid to so-called ‘military assistance on request’ or – as some would have it ‘intervention by invitation’ (even if the idea of a consensual ‘intervention’ is, strictly speaking, a contradictio in terminis). It is striking, for instance, that Louise Doswald-Beck’s seminal article in the 1985 British Yearbook of International Law remains perhaps the most well-known treatise on the topic. Recent years have nonetheless seen a striking resurgence of – at times highly problematic – cases of ‘military assistance on request’, raising important questions about the legal parameters of this justification for the use of force. Without claiming exhaustivity, recent cross-border military operations that have been justified on the basis of consent include the Saudi-led operation Decisive Storm in Yemen to support President Hadi against the Houthi rebels (2015-ongoing); the Russian intervention in Syria (2015-ongoing) pursuant to a request from the Assad regime; the actions of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (Operation Inherent Resolve) on Iraqi soil on the invitation of the Iraqi authorities (2014-ongoing); the Kenyan intervention in Somalia (inter alia in the context of Operation Linda Nchi (2011)); France’s Opération Serval in Mali (2012-ongoing (nowOpération Barkhane)); the 2017 ECOWAS intervention in The Gambia, at the request of President-elect Adama Barrow; the Russian intervention in Crimea (2014), justified in part by reference to an","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"1 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1783867","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1783867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, jus ad bellum debates have focused by and large on two main bones of contention. First, the vexing issue of the permissibility of unilateral humanitarian intervention has surfaced repeatedly in the wake of humanitarian crises in Kosovo, Syria and elsewhere. Second, with the advance of transnational terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ‘Islamic State’ – and, to lesser extent, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – the outer boundaries of the right of self-defence have been the subject of ample discussion. The legality of self-defence against attacks by non-state actors in particular has attracted enormous attention among states and international lawyers in the post 9/11 era. By contrast, far less attention has been paid to so-called ‘military assistance on request’ or – as some would have it ‘intervention by invitation’ (even if the idea of a consensual ‘intervention’ is, strictly speaking, a contradictio in terminis). It is striking, for instance, that Louise Doswald-Beck’s seminal article in the 1985 British Yearbook of International Law remains perhaps the most well-known treatise on the topic. Recent years have nonetheless seen a striking resurgence of – at times highly problematic – cases of ‘military assistance on request’, raising important questions about the legal parameters of this justification for the use of force. Without claiming exhaustivity, recent cross-border military operations that have been justified on the basis of consent include the Saudi-led operation Decisive Storm in Yemen to support President Hadi against the Houthi rebels (2015-ongoing); the Russian intervention in Syria (2015-ongoing) pursuant to a request from the Assad regime; the actions of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (Operation Inherent Resolve) on Iraqi soil on the invitation of the Iraqi authorities (2014-ongoing); the Kenyan intervention in Somalia (inter alia in the context of Operation Linda Nchi (2011)); France’s Opération Serval in Mali (2012-ongoing (nowOpération Barkhane)); the 2017 ECOWAS intervention in The Gambia, at the request of President-elect Adama Barrow; the Russian intervention in Crimea (2014), justified in part by reference to an
介绍
自冷战结束以来,关于战争正当性的辩论基本上集中在两个主要的争论点上。首先,在科索沃、叙利亚和其他地方发生人道主义危机之后,允许单方面人道主义干预的棘手问题一再浮出水面。其次,随着基地组织(Al Qaeda)和“伊斯兰国”(Islamic State)等跨国恐怖组织的发展,以及大规模杀伤性武器(在较小程度上)的扩散,自卫权的外部边界已成为广泛讨论的主题。在后9/11时代,针对非国家行为体攻击的自卫合法性尤其引起了各国和国际律师的极大关注。相比之下,人们对所谓的“应要求提供军事援助”或——正如一些人所说的“邀请干预”——的关注要少得多(即使双方同意的“干预”的想法严格来说是自相矛盾的)。例如,令人惊讶的是,路易丝·道斯瓦尔德-贝克在1985年英国国际法年鉴上的开创性文章可能仍然是关于这一主题的最著名的论文。尽管如此,近年来“应请求提供军事援助”的案件惊人地重新出现,有时问题很大,这对这种使用武力的理由的法律参数提出了重要的问题。最近的跨境军事行动在征得各方同意的基础上是合理的,其中包括沙特领导的在也门支持哈迪总统打击胡塞叛军的“决定性风暴”行动(2015年至今);应阿萨德政权要求,俄罗斯对叙利亚的干预(2015年至今);应伊拉克当局邀请,以美国为首的联盟在伊拉克领土上打击“伊斯兰国”的行动(“内在决心行动”)(2014年至今);肯尼亚对索马里的干预(除其他外,在琳达·恩奇行动(2011年)的背景下);法国在马里的几个op㈢(2012-至今(现为op㈢));2017年西非经共体应当选总统阿达马·巴罗的要求对冈比亚进行干预;俄罗斯对克里米亚的干预(2014年),在一定程度上是通过引用一个
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信