Skip to content

Tag Archives: EJILTalk

Akande on the Legality of Humanitarian Intervention

By
Thursday, August 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Dapo Akande has a pithy analysis of the legality of humanitarian intervention at EJIL: Talk!  Akande notes that “there is very little State support for the view that international law permits States to use force in other States on humanitarian grounds.”  He adds: The UK is of course one of the few States that does . . .
Read more »

Arming Syrian Rebels: Lethal Assistance and International Law

By
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 10:00 AM

On the Sunday talk shows, various members of Congress exhorted the United States to increase its assistance to the Syrian rebels, whether by providing them with additional (lethal) equipment, or by establishing a no-fly zone, or by entering Syria to secure its chemical weapons caches.  Last night the Post reported that the Executive Branch is seriously . . .
Read more »

The Capture-or-Kill Debate #8: Kevin Heller Joins the Conversation

By
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances.  The debate up to this point involved Professor Ryan Goodman, on one hand, and Professors Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen . . .
Read more »

Ryan Goodman in Slate on Kill or Capture

By
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Ryan Goodman follows up his EJIL draft with a briefer and more pointed version of the argument in Slate.

Ryan Goodman on The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants

By
Monday, February 11, 2013 at 7:59 AM

Ryan Goodman has a timely and important new article, forthcoming in EJIL, entitled The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants.  The Introduction to the piece (footnotes omitted) should draw many readers to the body of the argument: During wartime a critical legal question involves the scope of authority to choose whether to kill or . . .
Read more »

The US Government Position on Imminence and Active Self-Defense

By
Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

(Updated and extended.)  The White Paper’s reference to imminence has occasioned some heated rhetoric about the Obama administration stretching the notion beyond all possible ordinary meaning or bounds, etc.  But it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s nothing new in this from the standpoint of the US government.  The US government has held this view . . .
Read more »