Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKinacioglu, M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T10:07:13Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T10:07:13Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.identifier.issn14677954
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/22972
dc.description.abstractThis commentary examines the "strict-scrutiny" approach to self-defence as proposed by Professor Amos N. Guiora and analyzes whether it provides for a clear guideline as to when states may carry out pre-emptive and anticipatory action against a non-state actor. It reviews the existing concepts of the right of self-defence and pre-emption under international law, with special emphasis on the prevailing debates stemming from contesting interpretations of the related law. In addition, the commentary assesses the relevant decisions in international litigation and state practice to shed light on the application of the conditions for admissible use of force in specific instances of the use of force. In the second part, the commentary critically examines the merits and applicability of Professor Guiora's proposal. It concludes that when there is an international organization (United Nations) which is empowered as a world court, the utility of such domestic mechanism would be limited in terms of providing a legal and moral right to act preventatively. © Oxford University Press 2008; all rights reserved.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleJournal of Conflict and Security Lawen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krn015en_US
dc.titleA response to amos guiora: Reassessing the parameters of use of force in the age of terrorismen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of International Relations
dc.citation.spage33en_US
dc.citation.epage48en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber13en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jcsl/krn015en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record