India’s statement raises questions of whether a state has a right to self-defense against a nonstate actor when the latter’s conduct has not been attributed to another state, what qualifies as an “imminent” armed attack, and whether India is endorsing the unable-or-unwilling test.
Latest in jus ad bellum
Wherein Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, sends a formal letter of summons to the English upon the siege of Orleans.
Emory University's Laurie Blank discusses the meaning of the right of a state to use force against terrorist groups and violent extremists, in a forthcoming article in the Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, now posted to SSRN, and in a short column in the Jurist
A "brief" review of Marc Weller, ed., The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford UP 2015).
A few days ago, Paul McCleary at Foreign Policy reported on U.S. airstrikes against al Shabaab, undertaken in defense of AMISOM forces. McCleary asked, “Is there a new U.S. airstrike policy in East Africa?” My question is, “Is there a new legal theory supporting U.S. airstrikes against al Shabaab?” The most likely of possible answers: The United States could be acting on behalf of the Somali government, assisting it in its non-international armed conflict with al Shabaab.