Jus ad Bellum and Military Command

2020 ◽  
pp. 50-72
Author(s):  
J.F.R. Boddens Hosang
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Operational Planning ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Military Command ◽  
And Control ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the various legal bases for the use of force, including national self-defence and the criteria for national self-defence, examining the law governing the initiation of the use of force, jus ad bellum. It also looks at the various command and control systems applicable to both the operations and the operational planning process. Further, it discusses the role of non-State actors in the context of national self-defence as well as the use of force on the territory of third States in the context of a non-international armed conflict.

Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war

2006 ◽  
Vol 88 (864) ◽  
pp. 779-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Large Area ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Individual Actions ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThis article analyses the role and content of proportionality under contemporary international law governing the use of force, with a view to clarifying the legal framework governing the conduct of the parties to an armed conflict. In the system of jus ad bellum, protection is primarily granted to the interest of the attacked state in repelling the attack; the other competing interests are considered only to curtail the choice of the means to be employed in order to achieve that aim. Conversely, in the system of jus in bello there is by definition no prevailing interest, but instead a variety of interests and values which are entitled to equal protection of the law and must be balanced against each other. The existence of two distinct normative systems, with distinct standards of legality applicable to the same conduct, does not as a rule give rise to major problems. The legality of recourse to force is measured against the proportionality of self-defence, whereas individual actions would have to conform to the requirement of proportionality in jus in bello. However, beyond the large area in which these two standards overlap, there might be situations in which the strict application of the jus ad bellum standard makes it impossible to achieve the aims of jus in bello. In these cases, the proportionality test under jus in bello must be regarded as part of the proportionality test under jus ad bellum. States must thus take humanitarian implications into account in determining the level of security they may seek to obtain using military action.

The Great War and International Law: German Justifications of Prevention and Pre-emptive Self-Defence

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-206
Author(s):  
Isabel V. Hull
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Preventive War ◽  
Early Modernity ◽  
European State ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Great War ◽  
Self Defence

Isabel V. Hull uses the German declarations of war in 1914 to examine three issues: 1) the role of customary international law (CIL) in statesmen’s decision to go to war (using Germany as an example); 2) the assumptions that state actors held a jus ad bellum; and, especially, 3) how they distinguished self-defence, prevention, pre-emption, and aggression. Hull uses not the claims of jurists, but the arguments and actions of civilian and military leaders, i.e. those who actually made the decisions for war. With this, she continues Anuschka Tischer’s and Hendrik Simon’s examination of the question whether there was a transformation of war discourses in (early) modernity that led to overcoming the need to justify war. The chapter confirms that, even as Germany began a ‘preventive war’, the European state consensus held that, on the continent, preventive war was illegal, pre-emptive war was severely restrained, and genuine self-defence – meaning both fending off armed attack against one’s territory, independence, or sovereignty, and defending the treaty-structure that guaranteed the inter-state order – was the only justification for war acceptable to the community of states.

scholarly journals People in suits: a case study of empowerment and control in a non-profit UK organisation

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-528
Author(s):  
Roxana Corduneanu ◽  
Laura Lebec
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Management Control ◽  
Interactive Systems ◽  
Employee Perceptions ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
And Control

PurposeDrawing on Simons's levers of control (LoC) framework, the primary aim of this study is to advance an understanding of the balance between empowerment and constraint in a non-profit UK organisation. In particular, this study examines the antecedents and manifestations of LoC (im)balance, in relation to employees' level of engagement with the control systems in place.Design/methodology/approachFor this study, 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted with different organisational members, from directors to non-managerial staff, to gain an in-depth appreciation of the main differences between managerial intentions in the design of management control systems (MCS) and employee perceptions regarding the role of such systems.FindingsThis research reveals that suppression of interactive systems and internal inconsistencies between different types of controls hinder the balance between empowerment and constraint. This imbalance is then found to have important consequences for employee buy-in, in some cases, defeating the purposes of control.Research limitations/implicationsThis study enhances our understanding of the gap between the design of control systems and the employee perceptions of it in an unusual organisational setting (non-profit and bringing together clinical and non-clinical staff and operations).Originality/valueThe study of MCS and its role in organisations has long been the focus of both academic and practitioner research. Yet, while extant literature focused on management's perspective on MCS, few studies have explored employees' attitudes and behaviours that accompany the implementation of control. What is more, little is known about the specific uses and behavioural outcomes of MCS in the context of non-profit organisations. Drawing on Simons's LoC framework, this paper addresses these gaps in the literature and investigates the balance between control and empowerment of employees in a UK non-profit organisation with significant clinical remit.

The Principles

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casey-Maslen Stuart ◽  
Clapham Andrew ◽  
Giacca Gilles ◽  
Parker Sarah
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
Domestic Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
National Control ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the eight principles of the ATT. Article 5(1) requires parties to implement the treaty while bearing in mind the principles set out. The principles cover the following issues: the right of states to self-defence; the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; non-intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state; respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law and human rights; the responsibility of states to regulate international trade in conventional arms and prevent diversion and to establish national control systems; respect for the interests of states to acquire, produce, export, import, and transfer conventional arms; and implementation of the ATT in a consistent, objective, and non-discriminatory manner.

Blockades and Interdictions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the rules and principles that govern a naval or aerial blockade or some other form of interference with foreign vessels and aircraft in the absence of an explicit authorization by the UN Security Council. After clarifying the concept of blockade under the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, it considers blockades authorized as military enforcement measures. It also discusses some unresolved or even contested issues regarding the legality of blockades, with reference to blockades in situations other than international armed conflict and the principle of proportionality in relation to humanity. The scope of interdiction operations and its legal bases under international treaties are analysed next, together with maritime interdiction operations and the applicability of prize law during non-international armed conflicts. Finally, the chapter explores the right of individual or collective self-defence as a basis for interdiction operations.

The Limitations of Traditional Rules and Institutions Relating to the Use of Force

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Glennon
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Sovereign Equality ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the limitations of traditional rules and institutions with respect to the use of force. It considers international cooperation in managing the use of force, and whether and when the use of force is justified, within the framework of the jus ad bellum. The chapter discusses three factors that help to explain why the rules and institutions that regulate the use of force have not been effective. First is the weakness of international law’s secondary rules concerning consent, obligation, and causation. Second is the weaknesses in the UN Charter rules due to deficiencies in the wording of the rules themselves, especially with regard to pre-emptive self-defence. Third is the weakness in compliance resulting from the UN Security Council’s dysfunctionality, in part due to the UN’s professed reliance upon the principle of sovereign equality.

Introduction: International Law and the Problem of War

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Weller
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Community Values ◽  
Resolution Rule ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Nations System

This chapter examines the role of international law in preventing war and armed conflict. It begins by discussing three approaches to war and peace: the realist approach, the managerial approach, and the utopian visionary approach. It then considers some of the features of the United Nations system that were drawn from the League of Nations experience, including enforcement, dispute resolution, rule of law, prohibition of the use of force, and self-defence. The chapter also analyses how the UN Security Council deals with armed attacks undertaken by non-state actors, such as acts of terrorism. Finally, it outlines new challenges to the law on the use of force, particularly the new potential for armed conflict following the end of the Cold War, the issue of humanitarian intervention, and claims to enforcement of global community values.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document