Politics Over the Claim of Individual Self-Defense at Wars: Aid Conditionality and Reciprocity in Asian Regional Conflict

2017 ◽  
pp. 117-136
Author(s):  
Atsushi TAGO
Keyword(s):  
Regional Conflict ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Aid Conditionality ◽  
Individual Self

scholarly journals Biden Administration Relies on Constitutional Authority and Unwilling or Unable Theory of Self-Defense for Airstrikes in Syria

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-572
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Presidential Approval ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Individual Self

On February 25, 2021, the United States conducted a strike targeting Iranian-backed militia group facilities in Syria. The strike, which came in response to a February 15, 2021 attack on U.S. interests in Iraq, marked the Biden administration's first known exercise of executive war powers. As domestic authority for the strike, President Joseph Biden, Jr. cited his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and did not rely on the 2001 or 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs). For international legal authority, Biden relied on individual self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, stating that Syria was “unwilling or unable” to prevent further attacks on the United States by these non-state actors within its territory. The strikes garnered mixed reactions from Congress, where efforts are underway to repeal or reform extant AUMFs as well as the War Powers Resolution (WPR). The Biden administration is also undertaking a review of current U.S. military policy on the use of force, and during this process, it has prohibited drone strikes outside of conventional battlefields, absent presidential approval.

Can Wars Be Fought Justly? The Necessity Condition Put to the Test

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Statman
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Individual Self ◽  
Widespread View

AbstractAccording to a widespread view, the same constraints that limit the use of otherwise immoral measures in individual self-defense apply to collective self-defense too. I try to show that this view has radical implications at the level of jus in bello, implications which have not been fully appreciated. In particular, if the necessity condition must be satisfied in all cases of killing in war, then most fighting would turn out to be unjust. One way to avoid this result is to adopt a contractualist view of killing in war, a view which interprets the necessity condition in a way that is more permissive with regard to killing combatants in war. At least in this respect, a contractualist view of killing in war has an advantage over other candidates in explaining how wars might be fought justly.

War as Self-Defense

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff McMahan
Keyword(s):  
Self And Other ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Defensive Action ◽  
Individual Self

First imagine a case in which a person uses violence in self-defense; then imagine a case in which two people engage in self-defense against a threat they jointly face. Continue to imagine further cases in which increasing numbers of people act with increasing coordination to defend both themselves and each other against a common threat, or a range of threats they face together. What you are imagining is a spectrum of cases that begins with acts of individual self-defense and, as the threats become more complex and extensive, the threatened individuals more numerous, and their defensive action more integrated, eventually reaches cases involving a scale of violence that is constitutive of war. But if war, at least in some instances, lies on a continuum with individual self- and other-defense, and if acts of individual self- and other-defense can sometimes be morally justified, then war can in principle be morally justified as well. It follows that the only coherent forms of pacifism are those that reject the permissibility of individual self- or other-defense—for example, those based on an absolute prohibition of violence or killing.

Decisions in Japan to use Military Force or Participate in Multinational Peacekeeping Operations

2019 ◽  
pp. 827-842
Author(s):  
Tadashi Mori
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Existential Crisis ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Japanese Law ◽  
Individual Self

This chapter describes the law in Japan governing the country’s use of military force and participation in multinational peacekeeping operations. Although Article 9 of Japan’s post–World War II constitution seems to disallow the development of armed forces, the country has long maintained limited armed forces for purposes of self-defense. According to the Japanese government’s traditional constitutional interpretation, these forces can only be used when necessary to repel an armed attack on Japan. Under this interpretation, Japan can use armed force only for individual self-defense, not for collective self-defense or collective security. In addition, although Japanese law since the 1990s has allowed for some participation of Japanese forces in multinational peacekeeping operations, this allowance has been very limited. In 2015, however, Japan enacted two important statutes that broaden the government’s ability to use the country’s armed forces. One statute allows the country for the first time to exercise a right of collective self-defense, although the legislation only permits Japan to exercise this right for the purpose of ensuring its survival and protecting its people in situations that are called “existential crisis situations.” The other statute broadens the ability of Japanese forces to engage in various support activities in multinational peacekeeping operations. Because of Article 9 of the Constitution, however, Japan’s ability to use its military is still substantially more limited than for many other countries.

Self-Defense in International Law and Rights of Persons

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Standard Notion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Individual Self

In War and Self-Defense David Rodin uncovers many flaws of current thinking about war. Rodin correctly points out that the justification of national self-defense goes beyond the justification of individual self-defense. He accurately rejects the standard notion of moral symmetry—the accepted view that both just and unjust warriors can permissibly kill enemies as long as they observe the laws of war. Rodin vindicates the right view: if a war is unjust, each and every injury caused by the unjust warrior is a criminal act. There are no morally justified killings by those who fight unjust wars. Further, Rodin rightly rejects various holistic theories of self-defense. Last but not least, he correctly denounces what I have called the Hegelian Myth, the idea that tyrannical governments are worth defending against interventions aimed at deposing them because they are protected by the principle of sovereignty.

Individual Self-Defense in War

2018 ◽  
pp. 135-151
Author(s):  
Lionel K. McPherson
Keyword(s):  
Self Defense ◽  
Individual Self

Self-Defense and the Obligations to Kill and to Die

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheyney C. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Nation State ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right ◽  
Individual Self ◽  
The Military ◽  
Modern War ◽  
Modern Nation State

David Rodin's book, War and Self Defense, is a subtle and provocative analysis of the claim of self-defense and its relation to modern war. Building on his analysis, I raise some further issues about self-defense as a justification of modern nation state war. Principal among these is what I call the conscription paradox: if the state's right to make war is grounded in the right of its citizens to self-defense, how do we explain the right of modern states to conscript its citizens into the military – and order them to die, if need be? This problem has been acknowledged by liberal individual thinkers over the years, but not solved. It raises questions of whether a coherent account of current nation state military practice can be grounded in individual self-defense.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document