针对非国家行为体的自卫:理解“武装攻击”要求

M. O’Connell, C. Tams, D. Tladi
{"title":"针对非国家行为体的自卫:理解“武装攻击”要求","authors":"M. O’Connell, C. Tams, D. Tladi","doi":"10.1017/9781108120173.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Whether States can act in self-defence against armed attacks carried out by non-State actors is one of the major debates of contemporary international law. It has relevance : the issues are significant and implicate a ‘cornerstone rule’ of the discipline, the prohibition against the use of force. 1 It has drama : ‘two main camps’ 2 are said to face each other in what is now frequently (if simplistically) portrayed as an epic argument opposing ‘restrictivists’ and ‘expansionists’. 3 It has focus : positions are clearly articulated; academics take sides – where do you stand on the ‘unwilling or unable’ test; 4 what’s your view on the ‘Bethlehem Principles’; 5 have you signed the ‘Plea against the Abusive Invocation of Self-Defence’? 6 – and do not mince words. 7","PeriodicalId":398167,"journal":{"name":"Self-Defence against Non-State Actors","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-Defence against Non-State Actors: Making Sense of the ‘Armed Attack’ Requirement\",\"authors\":\"M. O’Connell, C. Tams, D. Tladi\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/9781108120173.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Whether States can act in self-defence against armed attacks carried out by non-State actors is one of the major debates of contemporary international law. It has relevance : the issues are significant and implicate a ‘cornerstone rule’ of the discipline, the prohibition against the use of force. 1 It has drama : ‘two main camps’ 2 are said to face each other in what is now frequently (if simplistically) portrayed as an epic argument opposing ‘restrictivists’ and ‘expansionists’. 3 It has focus : positions are clearly articulated; academics take sides – where do you stand on the ‘unwilling or unable’ test; 4 what’s your view on the ‘Bethlehem Principles’; 5 have you signed the ‘Plea against the Abusive Invocation of Self-Defence’? 6 – and do not mince words. 7\",\"PeriodicalId\":398167,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Self-Defence against Non-State Actors\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Self-Defence against Non-State Actors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108120173.003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Self-Defence against Non-State Actors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108120173.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

国家是否能够对非国家行为者的武装攻击采取自卫行动是当代国际法的主要辩论之一。它具有相关性:这些问题很重要,并涉及该学科的“基石规则”,即禁止使用武力。它有戏剧性:据说“两个主要阵营”在一场反对“限制主义者”和“扩张主义者”的史诗般的争论中相互对峙。3 .有重点:立场清晰;学者们各持己见——你对“不愿意或不能”测试持什么立场;你对“伯利恒原则”有什么看法?你是否签署了“反对滥用自卫权的抗辩书”?不要拐弯抹角。7
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Self-Defence against Non-State Actors: Making Sense of the ‘Armed Attack’ Requirement
Whether States can act in self-defence against armed attacks carried out by non-State actors is one of the major debates of contemporary international law. It has relevance : the issues are significant and implicate a ‘cornerstone rule’ of the discipline, the prohibition against the use of force. 1 It has drama : ‘two main camps’ 2 are said to face each other in what is now frequently (if simplistically) portrayed as an epic argument opposing ‘restrictivists’ and ‘expansionists’. 3 It has focus : positions are clearly articulated; academics take sides – where do you stand on the ‘unwilling or unable’ test; 4 what’s your view on the ‘Bethlehem Principles’; 5 have you signed the ‘Plea against the Abusive Invocation of Self-Defence’? 6 – and do not mince words. 7
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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