This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Answering questions: What careers can a degree in Law lead to?
- 1st Class Law Essays
- Law and getting hired
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Law llb
- SOAS or UoB for Law LLB?
- Unpaid politics internship for law, helpful or not?
- The International city cooperation clusters
- Optional Law modules
- Finding it hard to progress in the Civil Service?
- Do you think I have a chance to get an offer for law at Oxford/Cambridge?
- LSE vs UCL vs Durham Law
- Education
- Law at SOAS
- Applying to Oxford MPhil Comparative Government
- Queen Mary International relations with Business management
- BCL Chances -- High First First Year, High 2:1 Second Year
- Law or Computer Science
- ICE's "Eye of God" program
- Types of Law practitioners in the UK.
Public International Law
Can anyone help me with clues on these two questions of public international law plz:
a) A new situation requires new rules.” Discuss this proposition in relation to international terrorism and the law of self-defence and with reference to the response of the USA to the 11 September 2001 attacks.
b) “The United Nations Charter is in urgent need of reform to enable the international community to respond effectively to gross human rights violations occurring within the territory of a state.”
Discuss.
please do help.
a) A new situation requires new rules.” Discuss this proposition in relation to international terrorism and the law of self-defence and with reference to the response of the USA to the 11 September 2001 attacks.
b) “The United Nations Charter is in urgent need of reform to enable the international community to respond effectively to gross human rights violations occurring within the territory of a state.”
Discuss.
please do help.
I have absolutely no experience with law, but here's by bit:
1) I think you should probably look at what the United States has done in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect its territory. Then try to relate the law of self-defence and international terrorism using the example of the United States' reaction to the terrorist attacks.
2) This one's pretty self-explanatory. I think that you should look at the United Nations Charter, see what it permits and what it does not permit. Show (using a particular, well-documented example like the Rwanda genocide) that it does not allow action to be taken against human-rights violations withing the territory of a state.
Alternately you can argue that the United Nations Charter does not need to be changed because it allows for domestic freedom.
Again, this is what I would do, but I have not taken international law...
Best of luck and hope it's not due Monday morning
1) I think you should probably look at what the United States has done in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect its territory. Then try to relate the law of self-defence and international terrorism using the example of the United States' reaction to the terrorist attacks.
2) This one's pretty self-explanatory. I think that you should look at the United Nations Charter, see what it permits and what it does not permit. Show (using a particular, well-documented example like the Rwanda genocide) that it does not allow action to be taken against human-rights violations withing the territory of a state.
Alternately you can argue that the United Nations Charter does not need to be changed because it allows for domestic freedom.
Again, this is what I would do, but I have not taken international law...
Best of luck and hope it's not due Monday morning
1) is about how 9/11 has changed international law.
The traditional law of self-defence - i.e. what it says in the UN Charter - is extremely narrow. It generally did not allow for pre-emptive self-defences. Note the importance of an "armed attack". Also note the difficulties associated with self-defence where the attack comes from a non-State entity, i.e. by terror.
After 9/11, the international community seemed to accept a much wider notion of self-defence. Support of the United States' actions and of its right to protect itself from terror was pretty unanimous, so some commentators argued that this created new customary international law, effectively widening the notion of self-defence in the UN Charter. However, this has somewhat declined in recent years, so the scope of self-defence is still very debatable.
So, you are evaluating how far 9/11 really did widen self-defence. An alternative tangent would be to argue that self-defence never was as restrictive as many thought even before 9/11, and that the post-9/11 situation was nothing unusual... but only do that if your understanding of self-defence is good.
2) has three seperate elements. First, whether intervention to prevent Human Rights violations is actually permitted. Its generally accepted that you can use force to prevent genocide, but its rather limited outside that example. Of course, what constitues genocide is up for debate - though in recent years some commentators have argued that the use of force is permissible in wider circumstances than just genocide. Second, whether the mechanism by which the use of force may be authorised by the Security Council is sufficient. This starts leading you down "the UN is a dinosaur and so noone gives a damn about the UN Charter anymore, its pointless when China and Russia have a veto" route. Third, whether allowing the use of force to prevent breaches of IHRs is a good idea.
The traditional law of self-defence - i.e. what it says in the UN Charter - is extremely narrow. It generally did not allow for pre-emptive self-defences. Note the importance of an "armed attack". Also note the difficulties associated with self-defence where the attack comes from a non-State entity, i.e. by terror.
After 9/11, the international community seemed to accept a much wider notion of self-defence. Support of the United States' actions and of its right to protect itself from terror was pretty unanimous, so some commentators argued that this created new customary international law, effectively widening the notion of self-defence in the UN Charter. However, this has somewhat declined in recent years, so the scope of self-defence is still very debatable.
So, you are evaluating how far 9/11 really did widen self-defence. An alternative tangent would be to argue that self-defence never was as restrictive as many thought even before 9/11, and that the post-9/11 situation was nothing unusual... but only do that if your understanding of self-defence is good.
2) has three seperate elements. First, whether intervention to prevent Human Rights violations is actually permitted. Its generally accepted that you can use force to prevent genocide, but its rather limited outside that example. Of course, what constitues genocide is up for debate - though in recent years some commentators have argued that the use of force is permissible in wider circumstances than just genocide. Second, whether the mechanism by which the use of force may be authorised by the Security Council is sufficient. This starts leading you down "the UN is a dinosaur and so noone gives a damn about the UN Charter anymore, its pointless when China and Russia have a veto" route. Third, whether allowing the use of force to prevent breaches of IHRs is a good idea.
jacketpotato
1) is about how 9/11 has changed international law.
The traditional law of self-defence - i.e. what it says in the UN Charter - is extremely narrow. It generally did not allow for pre-emptive self-defences. Note the importance of an "armed attack". Also note the difficulties associated with self-defence where the attack comes from a non-State entity, i.e. by terror.
After 9/11, the international community seemed to accept a much wider notion of self-defence. Support of the United States' actions and of its right to protect itself from terror was pretty unanimous, so some commentators argued that this created new customary international law, effectively widening the notion of self-defence in the UN Charter. However, this has somewhat declined in recent years, so the scope of self-defence is still very debatable.
So, you are evaluating how far 9/11 really did widen self-defence. An alternative tangent would be to argue that self-defence never was as restrictive as many thought even before 9/11, and that the post-9/11 situation was nothing unusual... but only do that if your understanding of self-defence is good.
The traditional law of self-defence - i.e. what it says in the UN Charter - is extremely narrow. It generally did not allow for pre-emptive self-defences. Note the importance of an "armed attack". Also note the difficulties associated with self-defence where the attack comes from a non-State entity, i.e. by terror.
After 9/11, the international community seemed to accept a much wider notion of self-defence. Support of the United States' actions and of its right to protect itself from terror was pretty unanimous, so some commentators argued that this created new customary international law, effectively widening the notion of self-defence in the UN Charter. However, this has somewhat declined in recent years, so the scope of self-defence is still very debatable.
So, you are evaluating how far 9/11 really did widen self-defence. An alternative tangent would be to argue that self-defence never was as restrictive as many thought even before 9/11, and that the post-9/11 situation was nothing unusual... but only do that if your understanding of self-defence is good.
Indeed, you're going to have to address the Bush Doctrine :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
Bits about Security Council authorisation for the use of force - though a detailed knowledge of this isn't required, just an abstract knowledge of how the UN Charter works to govern the use of force which will allow you to consider whether it is sufficient
Related discussions
- Answering questions: What careers can a degree in Law lead to?
- 1st Class Law Essays
- Law and getting hired
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- Law llb
- SOAS or UoB for Law LLB?
- Unpaid politics internship for law, helpful or not?
- The International city cooperation clusters
- Optional Law modules
- Finding it hard to progress in the Civil Service?
- Do you think I have a chance to get an offer for law at Oxford/Cambridge?
- LSE vs UCL vs Durham Law
- Education
- Law at SOAS
- Applying to Oxford MPhil Comparative Government
- Queen Mary International relations with Business management
- BCL Chances -- High First First Year, High 2:1 Second Year
- Law or Computer Science
- ICE's "Eye of God" program
- Types of Law practitioners in the UK.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
