Journal on the Use of Force and International Law最新文献

{"title":"The changing law of non-intervention in civil wars – assessing the production of legality in state practice after 2011","authors":"Christine Nowak","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1431457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1431457","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It is, especially since the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’, increasingly difficult satisfactorily to draw the line between an unfriendly but legal interference and an unlawful intervention. This article identifies as one root cause for the material vagueness of non-intervention the fact that on the formal level, the underlying parameters determining the formation and change of customary law are equally imprecise. Current state practice shows that, rather than solely distinguishing between legal and extralegal reasoning, states use a spectrum of reasoning adjusted to the political, moral or strategic relevance of the issue in question. This article suggests how to deal with governmental behaviour that cannot be classified within the existing categories without provoking even more controversies. Emphasis should be placed on the sub-tunes of state behaviour as it is, in fact, this in-between stage that states use to test, reformulate or ultimately reject what is potentially a new legal argument.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"40 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2018.1431457","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48139863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond rhetoric? Evaluating the Responsibility to Protect as a norm of humanitarian intervention","authors":"G. Melling","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1448156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1448156","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to examine whether, after 16 years or more of its development, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has emerged as an international norm of intervention. As an idea, it is clear that R2P has a considerable degree of prominence within international discourse. As will be shown in this article, there has been much work undertaken in the development of its language and conceptual framework over the years. However, whilst this architecture is important to the process of its development as an international norm, it will be argued that more is needed to support the claim that R2P has fully emerged as an international norm, that is, R2P’s capacity to influence and shape the decision-making of states.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"78 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2018.1448156","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44604313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Introduction","authors":"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1455416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455416","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) begins with another excellent guest editorial comment, this time by Alexander Orakhelashvili. In his comment, Orakhelashvili critiques the approach that has been taken by the High Court in England and Wales in relation to the crime of aggression. The articles section of this issue then comprises four pieces that, while taking very different points of focus, touch on some similar underlying themes related to states’ legal argumentation and invocation of the law in the ad bellum context, and possible disconnects between the status of law (whether perceived or actual) and what states may say or do. The issue’s first article, by Christian Marxsen, takes as a starting point the apparent contradiction between states’ verbal commitments to the law and the prevalence of armed conflicts. He provides empirical insights into how states invoke international law to justify their uses of force, and develops a typology of how law can be confirmed by its invocation – even in cases where it may be coupled by illegal action – through an inductive approach based on case-analysis. The second article in this issue is a contribution by Christina Nowak, who uses intervention in civil wars as a lens through which to examine the complexities of legal argumentation in the ad bellum context. She uses state practice to show that states employ a spectrum of reasoning and argumentation adjusted to the political, moral or strategic relevance of the issue in question, and argues that emphasis should be placed on an ‘in-between stage’ of quasi-legality in which states test, reformulate or reject potential new legal arguments. Graham Melling’s contribution to the issue focuses on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and considers whether the considerable degree of prominence of R2P within international discourse may be at odds with its emergence (or lack of) as an international norm with the capacity to influence and shape the decision-making of states. Finally in this section, Victor Kattan argues that there has been an attempt to expand the scope of the right of self-defence, and particularly the right of anticipatory self-defence through the provision of a new standard of ‘imminence’. In so doing, his arguments centre more on the process of development of the legal arguments rather than the arguments themselves, with a notable – although not exclusive – focus on the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43233577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Digest of state practice: 1 July 2017 – 31 December 2017","authors":"T. Ruys, N. Verlinden, C. Vander Maelen, Sebastiaan Van Severen","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1455463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455463","url":null,"abstract":"Regional Coordinators: Marie Aronsson-Storrier, Heather Brandon, Patrick Butchard, Kenneth Chan, Sina Etezazian, Ben Murphy, Sten VerhoevenDigest Contents: Europe Ukraine – Russia: violations of th...","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"145 - 187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455463","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45185899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"International law and new wars","authors":"Lynsey Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1455415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455415","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"188 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2018.1455415","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49456466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The High Court and the crime of aggression","authors":"Alexander Orakhelashvili","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2018.1411129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2018.1411129","url":null,"abstract":"As is well known, in 2003, a US-led coalition (that included the UK) invaded Iraq, without the UN Security Council’s authorisation under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The operation was widely seen...","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"3 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2018.1411129","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45581147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Furthering the ‘war on terrorism’ through international law: how the United States and the United Kingdom resurrected the Bush doctrine on using preventive military force to combat terrorism*","authors":"Victor Kattan","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article revisits the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012. As disclosed in documents revealed by WikiLeaks, the principles were the product of intergovernmental discussions led by the United States to secure greater understanding of the jus ad bellum that had their origins in the controversial ‘Bush doctrine’ published in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002. In 2017, the UK Attorney General announced that the UK ‘follows and endorses’ Principle 8 of ‘The Bethlehem Principles’, as did Australia’s Attorney General. Principle 8 reflects an expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defence by providing a new standard of imminence to enable preventive military strikes against threats outside traditional conflict zones.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"144 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60042110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Violation and confirmation of the law: the intricate effects of the invocation of the law in armed conflict","authors":"Christian Marxsen","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1365488","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1365488","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Within the jus contra bellum there is an apparent contradiction between states’ verbal commitments to the law and the prevalence of armed conflicts. Taking this contradiction as a starting point, this article aims to provide empirical insights into how states invoke international law to justify their participation in armed conflicts. It develops a typology of how law can be confirmed by its invocation, taking an inductive approach based on case analysis. Do recent military interventions indicate a decline of international law? This article argues that there are three dimensions of confirmation. Firstly, law can be confirmed as an instrument of communication between states. Secondly, in a set of uncontroversial cases, the specific substantive rules of international law are confirmed through what is described as coherent practice. Thirdly, the article explains why even in controversial cases substantive rules may be confirmed through their invocation, even where the action is in fact illegal.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"39 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1365488","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44124920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Introduction","authors":"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law (JUFIL) features a guest editorial comment – co-written by Claus Kreß (a member of our Advisory Board) and Benjamin Nußberger (a previous contributor to this journal) – considering the crisis in The Gambia in the early part of 2017, following the refusal of President Yahya Jammeh to transfer power to the president-elect, Adama Barrow. Kreß and Nußberger use The Gambia example, which has received relatively little consideration as yet in scholarship, to highlight a subtle interplay between a UN resolution and the notion of ‘intervention by invitation’ (in the context of cases involving considerations of democratic legitimacy). The articles section of this issue begins with a piece that, to some extent, moves beyond the ‘pure’ ad bellum mandate of this journal, but one that had such significant points of overlap that the JUFIL editors were very keen to publish it: Matteo Tondini examines – and attempts to clarify – the scope and contents of international law principles and rules applicable to the use of force in maritime law enforcement operations. Tondini’s analysis is focused on how the criteria of unavoidability, reasonableness and necessity, as developed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, are to be interpreted according to, and complemented by, the principles and rules contained in international human rights law instruments and in the related case law. Chris O’Meara’s contribution then returns us to more traditional ad bellum territory – self-defence – but does so in a way that is notably unique. O’Meara argues that academic and judicial consideration of the right of self-defence in international law has focused on the right as it applies to states, meaning that little attention has been paid to how this right of national (i.e. state) selfdefence relates to, and interacts with, the concurrent right of military personnel and their units to defend themselves. O’Meara highlights some fundamental problems that stem from this focus on national self-defence alone, and offers some unified thinking – taking into account both national and personal/unit self-defence – with regard to a range of issues that relate to the application of the inherent right. It is clear that predominant opinion is now that (at least some) cyberattacks should rightly be considered to be violations of Article 2(4), and that, in extreme cases, a cyber-attack may lead to self-defence under","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"237 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1383063","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48077287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Digest of state practice: 1 January – 30 June 2017","authors":"T. Ruys, Luca Ferro, C. Vander Maelen","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1385347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1385347","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"371 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1385347","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44717433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}