留学生International Law Essay [3]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-09-23编辑:zcm84984点击率:12331
论文字数:3946论文编号:org201409201241546483语种:英语 English地区:马来西亚价格:免费论文
关键词:Law EssayForce InternationalIllusory Law法律问题
摘要:本文是一篇国际法的留学生 Law Essay,主要分析武力国际法律的法律规范使用,在人类历史上,冲突可能是最明显和最频繁发生的事情。因为在最早的时候,男子使用武力,没有迹象表明这一不幸事件在任何时间将成为过去的概念。
and Syria in June 1967 are the most pertinent examples of reliance on pre-emptive self-defence. Israel argued, successfully that it was forced to resort to armed force because the Arab military build-up on its borders had reached a phase where it was “imminent” that it would most surely be a victim of armed attack. The Security Council Resolutions 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 and 242 [12] did not apportion any blame to Israel for resorting to armed force primarily because of the fact that Arab military build-up had reached a critical phase. Even though Israel “fired the first shot”, which contravened the requirement under Article 51 that that there must be an armed attack before a state can respond, Israel’s actions were not deemed illegitimate. In fact, two decades later in the case of Nicaragua [13] there was an affirmation of the idea that customary law remains different from Article 51 which means that Israel’s actions were legitimate under customary international law. The Six Day war is an example of the system (both the UN Charter and customary law) adapting to the requirements of modern pre-emptive military necessities. This was evident in the case of US actions against Afghanistan after the event of September 11th 2001. The US notified the Security Council that it would be taking action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda organisation held responsible for the attacks and the Taliban regime which has provided bases and sanctuary for the organisation. Article 5 of the NATO Treaty was invoked under which an armed attack against the US was deemed as an armed attack against US’ north Atlantic allies as well thereby allowing them to collective self-defence. As the events of 11th September 2001 were accepted as “armed attack” under Article 51, the US and its allies relied on self-defence with the support and acquiescence of the international community. This was the extent to which the legality of the action in Afghanistan was without any controversy.
The US indeed targeted Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but in reality, it targeted the Taliban regime more. The legal justification for this measure is contained in the National Security Strategy of the United States (17th September 2002) commonly known as the Bush Doctrine. President Bush put forward that idea that there would be no distinction between terrorists and those entities which harbour them, in this case the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. According to Henderson, this proposition is yet to become part of jus ad bellum because the widespread support that the US got for its actions in Afghanistan post 9/11 were out of shock and sympathy for the US owing to the tragic events in New York and Washington DC. Furthermore, there is no evidence of further use of this principle which means that there is very little state practice. [14] For such an action to be permissible, Henderson contends that the notion of “effective control” would have to be satisfied and it is extremely difficult to establish a link between the Taliban influencing Al Qaeda to act on its behalf and carry out attacks. The present law therefore does not support the “harbouring principle” even though President Obama has also endorsed it in National Security Strategy of 27th May 2010 (Obama Doctrine). [15] But this did not prevent the US from following the principle and it continues to this day. This explains the prime problem with international law as whole, the problem of effective enforcement. Illegality of an action has
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。