exams notes for international law.docx

14 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Gerard J Kennedy

INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AND TARGETED KILLINGWe will look at the basic structure surrounding the Law of Armed Conflict also known as International Humanitarian Law codified in the Geneva Conventions But does it even makes sense to consider the law of war given how war is the ultimate breakdown of law We will in particular consider the practice of targeted killingReadingsTextbook pp 833840 Whendoes the International law permits states to use military forces against the other state It has to be considered that this happens when the targeted states has violated certain international law and obligations May be if thereis a question on Russia and CrimiaThis is taken from page 833 to 840The prohibition on the threat or use of force 1Article 24 of the UN Charter state that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or any other manner inconsistent with purposes of the United NationsThus by using forces against another state is a violation of the international law UN Charter andalso of the sovereignty of that state2Statesshould not engage in war of aggression ie waragainst peace3Even of in times of international disputes the states haveto refrain from the use offorce as a means of solving the international disputes 4Every stateshas the duty ti refrain from organising instigating and assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another state or acquiescing in organised activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of forceIe the Nicaragua case here The Republic of Nicaragua v The United States of America1 was a 1986 case of the International Court of Justice ICJ in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua The ICJ held that the US had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaraguas harbors The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case The US later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation2 The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 under the later postFSLN government of Violeta Chamorro following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation356The Court found in its verdict that the United States was in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State not to intervene in its affairs not to violate its sovereignty not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce and in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 19567No territory shallbe acquired through the military force ie the annexing of the other territory by the use of forceis prohibitedIe No territory acquisition through the use of military forceNicaragua UN that nothing should deter the use of force Look at moreAnd you also must report the situation to the security councilAnd also the collective of self defence is recognisedAlso look at why El Sevardo did not complainThe motives of the attack mattersIe Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against NicaraguaNicaragua v United states of America 1986 ICJ rep 14 Ie Nicaragua had claimed that US had used force against its territory which is contrary to the Article 24 of the UN charterGENEVA CONVENTIONS COMMON ARTICLES 2 AND 3MILENA STERIO THE UNITED STATES USE OF DRONES IN THE WAR ON TERROR THE ILLEGALITY OF TARGETED KILLINGS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWTarget KillingThe debate centers on the permissibility of USG targeting under two international legal frameworks jus ad bellum which governs the decision of whether or not to use force and jus in bello which governs the way that warfare once undertaken is conducted Jus Ad BellumThe debate whether the USGs targeting policy is a permissible use of force under international law At least according to the UN Charter that the use of force is legitimate only if undertaken in selfdefense or authorized by the United Nations
More Less

Related notes for POL340Y1

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.