A Contractarian Account of the Crime of Aggression

2019 ◽  
pp. 71-97
Author(s):  
Yitzhak Benbaji ◽  
Daniel Statman
Keyword(s):  
Moral Standing ◽  
Political Society ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the moral standing of jus ad bellum as it is formulated in the UN Charter. According to the contract that the Charter embeds, any armed violation of a state’s territorial integrity by another state is an instance of prohibited aggression. As we read it, the Charter confers a moral right against aggression even on states whose borders are unjustly drawn, and even on dangerous states whose political society is irrecoverably divided. In return, states gain a right to go to wars whose aim is to defend their territorial integrity even when such wars are pre-contractually unjust.

Underground Warfare and the Jus ad Bellum

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daphné Richemond-Barak
Keyword(s):  
Military Force ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Hostile Intent ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter discusses situations in which cross-border tunnels may lead to the outbreak of war. Cross-border tunnels violate sovereignty and territorial integrity and demonstrate hostile intent on the part of the neighboring entity. Various factors influence the victim state’s decision to go to war in such situations, such as the number of tunnels, their level of completion, their proximity to civilian-populated neighborhoods, and the relationship with the party that dug the tunnel. Not every cross-border tunnel will trigger the right to self-defense or the strategic urge to go to war: this chapter distinguishes between situations in which cross-border tunnels can lead to war and those in which they do lead to war. Cross-border threats do not significantly differ from other threats in this regard. As with other types of cross-border tensions, states may possess the right to react using military force but not make use of such right.

10. International law and the use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 219-246
Author(s):  
Nicole Scicluna
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter explores the justness, legitimacy, and legality of war. While 1945 was a key turning point in the codification of jus ad bellum (i.e. international law on the use of force), that framework did not emerge in a vacuum. Rather, it was the product of historical political contingencies that meant that codification of the laws of war was contemporaneous, both geographically and temporally, with the solidification of the norms of sovereign nation-statehood and territorial integrity. The chapter focuses on the UN Charter regime and how it has shaped the politics of war since 1945. Importantly, the Charter establishes a general prohibition on the use of force in international relations. It also grants two exceptions to the prohibition: actions undertaken with Security Council authorization and actions taken in self-defence. Today, many of the most serious challenges to the Charter regime concern the definition and outer limits of the concept of self-defence. Another set of challenges to the Charter regime concerns the contested concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The chapter then looks at the development of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine.

Punishment and Loss of Moral Standing

1991 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Morris
Keyword(s):  
Moral Standing ◽  
Political Society ◽  
The Public

When any man, even in political society, renders himself by his crimes obnoxious to the public, he is punished by the laws in his goods and person; that is, the ordinary rules of justice are, with regard to him, suspended for a moment, and it becomes equitable to inflict on him, for the benefit of society, what otherwise he could not suffer without wrong or injury?

Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-653
Author(s):  
Valerie Muguoh Chiatoh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Third World ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Present Issue ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Relationship

African states and institutions believe that the principle of territorial integrity is applicable to sub-state groups and limits their right to self-determination, contrary to international law. The Anglophone Problem in Cameroon has been an ever-present issue of social, political and economic debates in the country, albeit most times in undertones. This changed as the problem metamorphosed into an otherwise preventable devastating armed conflict with external self-determination having become very popular among the Anglophone People. This situation brings to light the drawbacks of irregular decolonisation, third world colonialism and especially the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity in Africa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document