1 edition of Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors found in the catalog.
Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors
|Series||Oxford monographs in international law|
|LC Classifications||KZ6405.N66 L83 2010|
|The Physical Object|
|LC Control Number||2010010918|
Rumsfeld, U. As I told Noam at the launch, I went to high school literally around the corner from where the rebels actually met to organize their struggle, at Montgomery's Tavern in North Toronto. After all, the seminal case of self-defence in international law, the Caroline Case, involved the use of force by Canadian troops against non-state rebels on US soil. These writers argue, correctly, that the wording of Common Article 3, referred to above, does not prevent a non-international armed conflict from straddling more than one State. Secondly, they will usually not fulfil the other criteria for POW status.
This will be the case because the use of force by the intervening foreign State on the territory of the territorial State, without the consent of the latter, is a use of force against the territorial State. After all, the seminal case of self-defence in international law, the Caroline Case, involved the use of force by Canadian troops against non-state rebels on US soil. However, that contention does not itself resolve the matter under consideration. The issues covered include, among others: the possibility of self-defence against non-state actors, including anticipatory self-defence; the lawfulness of measures which do not conform to the parameters of self-defence; the classification of extra-territorial force against non-state actors as armed conflict; the 'war on terror' as an armed conflict; the laws of armed conflict regulating force against groups and individuals; the extra-territorial applicability of international human rights law; and the regulation of forcible measures under human rights law.
Actions of this type have occurred in what has become known as the 'war on terror', but are not limited to this context. Also that conflict is inextricably linked with any conflict with the non-State actor such that the State using force will have to follow the law applicable in international armed conflicts. It is also irrelevant to the existence of a state of international armed conflict whether the targeted entities are part of the governmental structure of the State or whether the purpose of the use of force is to affect the government of the State where force is being used. Deference to the sovereignty of the foreign State ought not to apply where that State acts outside its territory, as the sovereignty and autonomy of the territorial State are now also in issue. However, his proposals, while intelligent, are tentative and hardly concrete.
Knights of the razor
Off the beaten track in Hawaii.
News media guide to firearms
Gleanings From The World
Chemistry and Manufacture of Cosmetics
Discussion paper on restrictive covenants
state-supported colleges for women
The loyall convert
Liberal education for free men
Contaminated Sediments (Water Science and Technology , Vol 36 No 6-7)
issues of modernization & its impact on Indonesian Muslim intellectuals
The hostilities in question do not engage the armed forces of two States and are thus factually different from the quintessential international armed conflicts which are, of course, inter-State conflicts.
His monograph thus tackles questions that are not necessarily only germane to armed non-state actors for example, the lawfulness of anticipatory self-defence or the reach ratione loci of international human rights treatiesand that have in fact been discussed in more detail and perhaps with more sophistication elsewhere.
Under the personal model of human rights jurisdiction, as favored by Lubell but not necessarily by the European Court of Human Rights, as argued abovebin Laden may well have fallen within US jurisdiction for the purpose of the application of the ICCPR. An international armed conflict is no more than the use of armed force by one State against another.
The consent of the territorial State has the effect that there are not two opposing States involved in the conflict. The focus in this work is on the particular challenges raised by extra-territorial force against non-state actors and the book offers a number of solutions to these challenges.
Therefore, Lubell has approached his topic in a holistic way, examining the challenges to three branches of international law: the legal framework regulating the use of force jus ad belluminternational humanitarian law 'IHL'and international human rights law.
Lubell examines not only the rules themselves, but also how the three areas of law interact, and the contentious issues that arise within each.
The issues covered include, among others: the possibility of self-defence against non-state actors, including anticipatory self-defence; the lawfulness of measures which do not conform to the parameters of self-defence; the classification of extra-territorial force against non-state actors as armed conflict; the 'war on terror' as an armed conflict; the laws of armed conflict regulating force against groups and individuals; the extra-territorial applicability of international human rights law; and the regulation of forcible measures under human rights law.
Some states have gone so far as to combine legal rules from different areas of international law in an attempt to justify their actions.
Three frameworks of international law are examined in detail. In particular, if they are detained should they be accorded the protections to which civilians are entitled under the Fourth Geneva Convention?
It may be that the foreign State is pursuing the non-State group across an international border in order to deny the group cross border refuge.
I am a member of the group. It is important to recall that the purpose of classification of conflicts is so that one can determine the law which applies to the actions of participants in the conflict. Three frameworks of international law are examined in detail.
It is exactly such a framework that is developed by Lubell, and policy-makers and military planners may do well to draw on it. Admittedly, there is little doubt that Osama bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaeda, so that — unlike in many other situations — the target was clearly associated with a terrorist group.
As Noam explains, the issue goes right back to the famous Caroline case, which involved Canadian rebels today we would call them non-state actors who were fighting the British colonists from the American side of the Niagara River.
Many of these issues are the subject of ongoing and longstanding debate. Furthermore, both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II, dealing with non-international armed conflict, appear, on their face, to confine such conflicts to the territory of one Contracting Party.
On the other hand, Lubell has to introduce, in a rather slim volume, a number of general concepts, such as the contours of self-defence and the extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. What is important are the objective facts, which are: that force is being used by one State against another State i.
Moreover, recent practice shows that the right of self-defence is also exercised by states that are not a major global power, such as Colombia in EcuadorKenya in Somaliaor Turkey in Iraqi Kurdistan. More generally, when States use force abroad, even against non-State groups, they routinely invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The Court applied the law of international armed conflicts the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I to the activities of Uganda in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and even to acts of Uganda outside the province of Ituri, which was held to have been under Ugandan occupation.
Where the conflict between the foreign State and the non-State group is inextricably bound up with another conflict notably a conflict between two States such that acts under the two conflicts to the extent the conflicts can be distinguished cannot be separated, the participants will, in reality, be bound to observe the law of international armed conflicts.
On one level, the thesis contributes to this commentary.Mar 04, · Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors analyses the relevant rules of international law applicable to the extra-territorial use of force by States against the acts of Non-State Actors that cannot necessarily be attributed to a particular State.
The reaction to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre towers in New York is taken as a leading case, but the book is not limited to the Cited by: 1. The first, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors by Noam Lubell, examines the background question in jus ad bellum of when it is lawful for a state to use force across borders against non-state actors such as terrorist groups.
It then turns to the correlate question of jus in bello – what body of law governs such activities in one or another circumstance, assuming that they are sometimes. PhD thesis ‘State failure’ and the extraterritorial use of force in self-defence against non-state actors.
Blachura, A. ‘State failure’ and the extraterritorial use of force in self-defence against non-state sylvaindez.com: A. Blachura. Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors is a highly valuable contribution to international law.
Lubell’s book clarifies how different areas of international law regulate state behaviour when a state uses force in the territory of another state against a non-state actor.
* Richard Burchill, Legal Studies * Lobell's writing is clear, logical, and organized Lucid and well-argued, Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors is recommended for those seeking to better understand international law's treatment of self-defense or non-state actors.
‘State Failure’ and the Extraterritorial Use of Force in Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors Anna Elżbieta lachura A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Westminster for a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy July