No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2020
1 See, e.g., Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-state Actors (2010); Murphy, Sean D., Terrorism and the Concept of “Armed Attack” in Article 51 of the UN Charter, 43 Harv. Int'l L.J. 41 (2002)Google Scholar; Reinold, Theresa, State Weakness, Irregular Warfare, and the Right to Self-Defense Post-9/11, 105 AJIL 244 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deeks, Ashley S., “Unwilling or Unable”: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense, 52 Va. J. Int'l L. 483 (2012)Google Scholar; Lindsey Moir, Reappraising the Resort to Force: International Law, Jus ad Bellum and the War on Terror (2010).
2 The second book in the Series on the “Law Applicable to Armed Conflict” by Ziv Bohrer, Janina Dill, and Helen Duffy was published in 2020, and the third on “Intervention by Invitation” by Olivier Corten, Gregory H. Fox, and Dino Kritsiotis is also in progress.
3 See, e.g., International Law as a Profession (Jean D'Aspremont, Tarcisio Gazzini, André Nollkaemper & Wouter Werner eds., 2017); Andrew Lang and Susan Marks, People with Projects: Writing the Lives of International Lawyers, 27 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 437 (2013).
4 See, e.g., Comparative International Law (Anthea Roberts, Paul B. Stephan, Pierre-Hugues Verdier & Mila Versteeg eds., 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bethlehem, Daniel, Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, 106 AJIL 770 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 See, perhaps most recently, Craig Martin, Challenging and Refining the “Unable or Unwilling Doctrine,” 52 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 387 (2019).
7 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 53, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.
8 See, e.g., Alexander Orakhelashvili, Changing Jus Cogens Through State Practice? The Case of the Prohibition of the Use of Force and its Exceptions, in The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law 157, 165 (Marc Weller ed., 2015).
9 See, e.g., Bruno Simma, NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects, 10 Eur. J. Int'l L. 3, 3 (1999).
10 See James Green, Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of the Use of Force, 32 Mich. J. Int'l L. 215 (2011).
11 This may not seem particularly surprising in light of Tams's observation that even within legal doctrine “[t]here remains a surprising degree of uncertainty as to how the question of self-defence against non-State actors should be approached” (p. 92) so that there is not “one obvious ‘natural outcome’” (p. 93).
12 GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (1974).
13 Dapo Akande and Thomas Liefländer note that “when the use of force is in response to an attack by a nonstate actor[,] . . . necessity becomes a critical gateway for considering whether a forcible response is permitted at all.” Akande, Dapo & Liefländer, Thomas, Clarifying Necessity, Imminence, and Proportionality in the Law of Self-Defense, 107 AJIL 563, 564 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 See, e.g., Kimberley N. Trapp, Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-Defence against Non-state Terrorist Actors, 56 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 141 (2007).
15 On these, see, in particular, Tom Ruys, “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice (2010).