MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2732742133 · doi:10.2298/bg20121105raosavljevic

Right of state to self-defense in light of international practice

2012· dissertation· en· W2732742133 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Predrag Raosavljevic

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInternational Law and Human Rights
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of OxfordYale UniversityUniversity of CambridgePrinceton UniversityYork UniversityAfrican UnionUnited Nations
Mots-clésState (computer science)Self defensePolitical scienceComputer securityLawComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Question of right of states to self-defense is one of the fundamental questions of public international law.This principle, which exists just as long as public international law does, was formulated in universal manner by the mid 20th century and there are many written works on its formulation and interpretation.Invoking self-defense during the course of history was used as a pretext for the use of force by the states outside of its territories.Right of states to self-defense originates from customary international law.During antic and medieval times, principle of self-defense was linked to the theory of just war which was differently interpreted in different times.In the period between two world wars, still there was no absolute prohibition of the use of force in international relations so the principle of self-defense was linked to the right of self-help through use of different forcible measures: retorsions, reprisals, naval blockade, intervention and demonstration of naval power.Contrary to the period of League of Nations, mechanism of implementation of international law was centralized by the foundation of the United Nations because a single body -Security Council -was entrusted with the authority to determine when the use of force is allowed in international law.Article 51 of the United Nations Charter defines that the states have a right to individual or collective self-defense in case of armed attack on the UN member state.This right is considered legitimate until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.Since its foundation to this date, Security Council was faced many times with cases of use of force by the states invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter.Those examples that best illustrate positions of the states and the decisions or reactions of the Security Council during 60 years practice have been described.Contrary to the Security Council, participation of the International Court of Justice in the debate about right to self-defense has been rather limited.This Chapter offers the analysis of the court decisions in all cases where right to self-defense and implementation of the Article 51 of the UN Charter have been the questions in the dispute between the states.Although, Court decisions, in principle, are binding only for individual case and for the parties in the concrete dispute, their significance and influence on the practice of the states, as well as on the other court or arbitration decisions is well known, so that every Court decision can serve as a guidance in the existing debate related to the right to selfdefense.Based on the above-mentioned analysis, it is evident that right to self-defense in international relations can be exercised only with certain restrictions.These restrictions relate to the question of the gravity of the attack, necessity to act in self-defense, proportionality between the attack and the self-defense, temporal connection between the attack and the self-defense and restrictions regarding exercise of collective self-defense.Faced with the threats from non-state actors, international community did not formally amended the rules from the Charter, but it did reshape them through process of interpretation.Although Court took restrictive position with regard to elements that justify the use of force in self-defense, examples have been described where Security Council interpreted Article 51 in a more flexible manner with respect to requirement that armed attack must originate from another state.In cases where states act unilaterally and decide to use the force against terrorist organizations or other non-state actors, such actions cause condemnation by the international community and do not evolve into norms of international law.Although every state is at liberty to withhold the supply of arms to another state, there is a proposition that the mandatory arms embargo, imposed by the Security Council, jeopardizes right of state to self-defense.Through analysis of different cases, criteria are established that serve as a guidance to the Security Council when it decides to apply some of the measures foreseen in Articles 40 and 41 of the UN Charter, in order to maintain international peace and security.At the present time, use of force has become more complex and is realized in many unconventional ways which hardly fit norms of international law.Strict adherence to the system of states seems inadequate to respond to all questions that may arise while implementing this principle.Traditional doctrine does not provide adequate answers to the realities of conflicts which are, among else, today characterized by: failed states, nonstate actors, surpassing or abandoning Westphalian concept of sovereignty of states (at least according to some authors).Therefore, question of right of states to self-defense is one of the classical concepts of public international law but concept which is dynamic by its nature because it follows the fate of the development of international law in general.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,045
Communication savante0,0120,013
Science ouverte0,0010,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,335
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetInternational Law and Human RightsTravaux en français237 207