An Analysis on the Application of the Right of Anticipatory Self-defense against Advanced North Korean Nuclear Threat: Focused on the Concept of Interceptive Strike

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-32
Author(s):  
Hwee-rhak Park
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Threat ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Toleration as the Balance Between Liberty and Security

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Elisabetta Galeotti ◽  
Federica Liveriero
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Harm Principle ◽  
Social Tolerance ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Harm Principle

AbstractTraditionally, an adequate strategy to deal with the tension between liberty and security has been toleration, for the latter allows the maximization of individual liberty without endangering security, since it embraces the limits set by the harm principle and the principle of self-defense of the liberal order. The area outside the boundary clearly requires repressive measures to protect the security and the rights of all. In this paper, we focus on the balance of liberty and security afforded by toleration, analyzing how this strategy works in highly conflictual contexts and sorting out the different sets of reason that might motivate individual to assume a tolerant attitude. We contend that toleration represents a reliable political solution to conflicts potentially threatening social security when it is coupled with social tolerance. Hence, we examine the reasons the agents may have for endorsing toleration despite disagreement and disapproval. In the range of these reasons, we argue that the right reasons are those preserving the moral and epistemic integrity of the agent. The right reasons are however not accessible to everyone, as for example is the case with (non-violent) religious fundamentalists. Only prudential reasons for toleration seem to be available to them. And yet, we argue that an open and inclusive democracy should in principle be hospitable towards prudential and pragmatic reasons as well, which may potentially lay the grounds for future cooperation. We conclude therefore that the tolerant society has room for the fundamentalists, granted that they do not resort to violence.

Reflections on the existence of the science of criminal law

2021 ◽  
pp. 156-161
Author(s):  
I. Mytrofanov
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Public Relations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Crime And Punishment ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The article states that today the issues of the role (purpose) of criminal law, the structure of criminal law knowledge remain debatable. And at this time, questions arise: whose interests are protected by criminal law, is it able to ensure social justice, including the proportionality of the responsibility of the individual and the state for criminally illegal actions? The purpose of the article is to comprehend the problems of criminal law knowledge about the phenomena that shape the purpose of criminal law as a fair regulator of public relations, aimed primarily at restoring social justice for the victim, suspect (accused), society and the state, the proportionality of punishment and states for criminally illegal acts. The concepts of “crime” and “punishment” are discussed in science. As a result, there is no increase in knowledge, but an increase in its volume due to new definitions of existing criminal law phenomena. It is stated that the science of criminal law has not been able to explain the need for the concept of criminal law, as the role and name of this area is leveled to the framework terminology, which currently contains the categories of crime and punishment. Sometimes it is not even unreasonable to think that criminal law as an independent and meaningful concept does not exist or has not yet appeared. There was a custom to characterize this right as something derived from the main and most important branches of law, the criminal law of the rules of subsidiary and ancillary nature. Scholars do not consider criminal law, for example, as the right to self-defense. Although the right to self-defense is paramount and must first be guaranteed to a person who is almost always left alone with the offender, it is the least represented in law, developed in practice and available to criminal law subjects. Today, for example, there are no clear rules for the necessary protection of property rights or human freedoms. It is concluded that the science of criminal law should develop knowledge that will reveal not only the content of the subject of this branch of law, but will focus it on new properties to determine the illegality of acts and their consequences, exclude the possibility of using its means by legal entities against each other.

scholarly journals Individual Laterality in Ghost Crabs (Ocypode saratan) Influences Burrowing Behavior

Symmetry ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1512
Author(s):  
Reuven Yosef ◽  
Michal Daraby ◽  
Alexei Semionovikh ◽  
Jakub Z. Kosicki
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
Selection Pressure ◽  
Left Handed ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Temporal Segregation ◽  
Ghost Crabs ◽  
Left And Right ◽  
Burrowing Behavior ◽  
The Right

Behavioral handedness is known to enhance an individual’s handling capabilities. However, the ecological advantages in brachyuran crustaceans remain unclear, despite the Ocypode species having been studied extensively. Thus, in this study, we analyzed the laterality of the endemic Red Sea ghost crab on one beach in Eilat, Israel. We successfully documented the laterality of the large cheliped in 125 crabs; in 60 (48.0%), the right cheliped was larger, and in 64 (51.2%), the left. We also observed temporal segregation between the right- and left-clawed crabs. The right-handed crabs start activity just after sunrise, while left-handed crabs appear ca. 40 min after it. Similarly, temporal segregations were also observed in the evening. The right-clawed crab activity peaked ca. 20 min before sunset, while the left-clawed crabs were active uniformly. Additionally, burrow entrances corresponded to the larger cheliped of the resident individual and is probably a self-defense-related behavior. We conclude that cheliped laterality in O. saratan populations should be considered as a bimodal trait, where left- and right-handedness is not under natural selection pressure.

scholarly journals Przyczyny i procedura wydalania duchownych z instytutu zakonnego

2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 147-168
Author(s):  
Ambroży Skorupa
Keyword(s):  
Holy See ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Religious Institute ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Way ◽  
Moral Questions

A religious in an institute fulfills his vocation by following the way adequate to the charism of the institute. An attitude unsuited to a religious’ priestly vocation as well as to the institute’s charism, can be the cause of dismissal from religious institute. Among the causes of dismissal can be diffusion of doctrine inconsistent with the magisterium of the Church or an attitude incompatible with position of the Church. In the article were presented some exemplary statements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding doctrinal and moral questions. Stubborn diffusion of views recognized by the Holy See as opposed to the Catholic doctrine, may be another cause for dismissal from an institute. Dismissal from religious institute may also result from an attitude incompatible with the ecclesiastical and religious discipline. Attitudes causing grave scandal require reaction of the competent religious superiors. The superiors are obliged to act in accordance with the process regulated by the norms included in the CCL 1983 and in other ecclesiastical documents. Choosing proper process depends on the nature of an offense committed by a religious. For offenses described in can. 694 a religious is dismissed by the fact itself of committing the offense (ipso facto). Therefore the process described in the cannon for this form of dismissal must be kept. In instances of offenses described in cannons 695 and 1395, for which the legislator provided an obligatory dismissal, the process is different. In case of offenses pointed out in can. 696 the superior is obliged to initiate process indicated in can. 697. The right of the accused to self-defense, participation of a notary in the process, required decision by the major superior and approval of a decree by ecclesiastical hierarchical authority – the Holy See or diocesan bishop, depending on the approval level of the institute, deserves attention.

scholarly journals The Challenge of Cyber Attacks in the “Information Age” and the Jus Ad Bellum

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Pshtiwan Mohammed Qader
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Critical Infrastructures ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right

The present paper examines the problem of cyber-attacks under existing international law. It takes the view that the (United Nations) UN Charter provisions on the use of force can be extended to cyber-attacks by means of interpretation although the relevant provisions do not explicitly address such issue. This Article argues that cyber-attacks resulting in material damage or destruction to property, death or injury to persons, or severe disruption of the functioning of critical infrastructures can be characterized as use of armed force and therefore violate the prohibition contained in article 2(4) of the Charter. However, cyber-attacks not resulting in the above consequences may be illegal intervention in the internal affairs of other states if such attacks are coercive in nature. In addition, the current study discusses that a cyber-attack which amounts to a use of armed force per se is not sufficient to give the victim state the right to self-defense, unless its scale and effects are equivalent to those of a conventional armed attack. Finally, the study concludes that an international cyber treaty is truly necessary to more effectively address cyber-attacks.

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AND THE ORGANIC UNITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
David Little
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Organic Unity ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The Right

Abstract The article challenges the fashionable but finally unsupportable opinion in political and academic circles that there exists no compelling, unitary, universally resonant moral and legal justification of human rights. The argument is intimated by two overlooked passages in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that presuppose the right of self-defense against arbitrary force, understood as both a moral and legal concept, and as relevant both to personal and collective life. It shows how the logic of defensive force underlies the three formative human rights instruments: the UDHR, and the two covenants on political, legal, economic, social, and cultural rights. The underlying claim is that good reasons of a particular kind are required to justify any use of force, a claim that makes perfect sense against the backdrop of the atrocities committed by the German fascists and their allies in the mid-twentieth century. The article also refers to compelling, if preliminary, evidence of the widespread cross-cultural acceptance of the moral and legal right of self-defense, suggesting a basis for the worldwide comprehensibility and appeal of human-rights language.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document