Self-defense may never be invoked to justify an act of retaliation or revenge in response to an unlawful threat that is no longer ongoing or imminent. So was the U.S. right to point to self-defense in justifying a strike against Iran following the shootdown of a U.S. drone?
Latest in International Law: Self-Defense
Views might deviate along two axes: the debate about whether all uses of force constitute armed attacks and the debate about what requirements must be met before a state acts in collective self-defense of another state.
Sen. Tim Kaine has released a letter he sent to the Pentagon on Oct. 2 requesting further clarification on the Department of Defense's legal understanding of collective self-defense under international law. Specifically, Sen.
On Wednesday, the North Atlantic Council released the following communique on behalf of the heads of state of NATO member-countries. The full document is below.
Did the IDF respond appropriately under international law to Palestinian demonstrators along the Gaza border?
Israel has officially acknowledged a September 2007 strike that destroyed the Al-Kibar nuclear reactor in Syria. The operation is a data point on state practice on preemptive self-defense against nuclear threats.
One Piece at a Time: The ‘Accumulation of Events’ Doctrine and the ‘Bloody Nose’ Debate on North Korea
An analysis of the role that the “accumulation of events” doctrine may play in the debate over the legality of a possible “bloody nose” strike on North Korea.
After Prime Minister Theresa May referred to “unlawful use of force” in her speech concerning the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, it is worth clarifying the possible role of NATO and the range of potential British actions.
In her speech on the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May was deliberate with words and action. These diplomatic signals should have been clear to allies, especially the United States.