美国和英国在也门的军事打击与诉诸战争权

IF 1.6 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

International & Comparative Law Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1017/s0020589324000216

Christian Henderson

{"title":"美国和英国在也门的军事打击与诉诸战争权","authors":"Christian Henderson","doi":"10.1017/s0020589324000216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the jus ad bellum—is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"US AND UK MILITARY STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THE JUS AD BELLUM\",\"authors\":\"Christian Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0020589324000216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the jus ad bellum—is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589324000216\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589324000216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

自 2024 年 1 月以来，美国和联合王国对也门领土进行了一系列打击。针对也门胡塞团体在红海对各种商业和军事船只发动的一系列袭击，行动国以自卫权为由进行了辩解。从表面上看，这是一个相对简单的理由。然而，经过分析就会发现，不仅理由本身不明确，而且规范这些行动的法律--诉诸战争权--也没有得到充分解决，无法提供明确的参数来评估打击行动的合法性。此外，打击行动本身及其目的可能开创了一个先例，造成了不可预见的后果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

US AND UK MILITARY STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THE JUS AD BELLUM

The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the jus ad bellum—is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.

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

International & Comparative Law Quarterly LAW-

CiteScore

3.20

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.