Allen, Craig H, Maritime Counterproliferation Operations and the Rule of Law (Praeger Security International, 2007).Google Scholar

Arend, Anthony Clark and Beck, Robert J, International Law and the Use of Force (Routledge, 2nd ed, 2008).Google Scholar

Barriga, Stefan and Kreß, Claus (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Barriga, Stefan and Kreß, Claus (eds), The Travaux Préparatoires of the Crime of Aggression (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Boddens Hosang, Hans FR, The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Brecher, Michael and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, A Study of Crisis (University of Michigan Press, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Clarendon, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Byers, Michael and Boley, Aaron, Who Owns Outer Space? International Law, Astrophysics, and the Sustainable Development of Space (Cambridge University Press, 2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cannizzaro, Enzo and Pachletti, Paolo (eds), Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassese, Antonio (ed), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (Nijhoff, 1986).Google Scholar

Churchill, RR and Lowe, V, The Law of the Sea (Juris Publishing, 3rd ed, 2007).Google Scholar

Constantinou, Avra, The Right of Self-Defence under Customary International Law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000).Google Scholar

Corten, Olivier, Le droit contre la guerre: L’interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Pedone, 2nd ed, rev. and expanded, 2014).Google Scholar

Corten, Olivier, The Law against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar

Corten, Olivier, The Law against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Hart Publishing, 2nd ed, 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crawford, James Richard, Chance, Order, Change (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013).Google Scholar

Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge University Press, 5th ed, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doswald-Beck, Louise (ed), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge University Press, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franck, Thomas M, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Clarendon, 1997).Google Scholar

Franck, Thomas M, Recourse to Force: State Action against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio, The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law (Manchester University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio, The Use of Force in International Law (Ashgate, 2012).Google Scholar

Goldsmith, Jack L and Posner, Eric A, The Limits of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Gray, Christine, International Law and the Use of Force (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2008).Google Scholar

Green, James A, The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law (Hart Publishing, 2009).Google Scholar

Green, James A (ed), Cyber Warfare: A Multidisciplinary Analysis (Routledge, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gruber, Lloyd, Ruling the World (Princeton University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Hannikainen, Lauri, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law (Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, 1988).Google Scholar

Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, Christian, The Use of Force and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilderbrand, Robert C, Dumbarton Oaks: The Origins of the United Nations and the Search for Postwar Security (University of North Carolina Press, 1990).Google Scholar

Kelsen, Hans, The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems (Stevens, 1950).Google Scholar

Klein, Natalie, Maritime Security and the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kolb, Robert, Ius contra bellum: Le droit international relatif au maintien de la paix: précis (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2nd ed, 2009).Google Scholar

Kolb, Robert, Peremptory International Law – Jus Cogens: A General Inventory (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015).Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar

Krasner, Stephen D, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lubell, Noam, Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mazarr, Michael J, Mastering the Gray Zone: Understanding a Changing Era of Conflict (United States Army War College Press, December 2015).Google Scholar

Melzer, Nils, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newton, Michael and May, Larry, Proportionality in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Oppenheim, Lassa and Lauterpacht, Hersch (eds), International Law, vol. II Disputes, War and Neutrality (Longmans, 7th ed, 1952).Google Scholar

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Peremptory Norms in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar

Rodley, Nigel and Pollard, Matt, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2009).Google Scholar

Ronzitti, Natalino, Rescuing Nationals Abroad through Military Coercion and Intervention on Grounds of Humanity (Nijhoff, 1985).Google Scholar

Roscini, Marco, Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothwell, Donald and Stephens, Tim, The International Law of the Sea (Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar

Ruys, Tom, ‘Armed Attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N (ed), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Cambridge University Press, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, Clive H, The Limits of Maritime Jurisdiction (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sellars, Kirsten, Crimes against Peace and International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012).Google Scholar

Sloan, James, The Militarisation of Peacekeeping in the Twenty-First Century (Hart Publishing, 2011).Google Scholar

van Steenberghe, Raphaël, La légitime défense en droit international public (Larcier, 2012).Google Scholar

Stürchler, Nikolas, The Threat of Force in International Law (Cambridge University Press, Paperback ed, 2009).Google Scholar

Tanaka, Yoshifumi, The International Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thirlway, Hugh WA, The Sources of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Tucker, Robert W, The Law of Neutrality at Sea (United States Government Printing Office, 1957, reprinted 2006 and 2008).Google Scholar

Waldock, Humphrey, 106 Collected Courses, Academy of International Law (The Hague, 1962-II).Google Scholar

Waldock, Humphrey, The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law (Hague Academy of International Law, 1953).Google Scholar

Weisburd, A Mark, Use of Force: The Practice of States since World War II (Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Westra, Joel H, International Law and the Use of Armed Force (Routledge, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Wet, Erika, Military Assistance on Request and the Use of Force (Oxford University Press, 2020).Google Scholar

Wetterhahn, Ralph, The Last Battle: The Mayaguez Incident and the End of the Vietnam War (Plume, 2002).Google Scholar

White, Nigel D and Henderson, Christian (eds), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum (Elgar, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wright, David, Grego, Laura and Gronlund, Lisbeth, The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual (American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2005).Google Scholar

Young, Margaret A (ed), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Akande, Dapo, ‘Classification of Armed Conflicts: Relevant Legal Concepts’ in Wilmshurst, Elizabeth (ed), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts (Oxford University Press, 2012) 32.Google Scholar

Akande, Dapo and Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Concept of Aggression’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 214.Google Scholar

Anderson, David H, ‘Some Aspects of the Use of Force in Maritime Law Enforcement’ in Boschiero, Nerina et al (eds), International Courts and the Development of International Law (Springer, 2013) 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archibugi, Daniele, Croce, Mariano and Salvatore, Andrea, ‘Law of Nations or Perpetual Peace? Two Early International Theories on the Use of Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 56.Google Scholar

Becker-Weinberg, Vasco and Verdirame, Guglielmo, ‘Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Shipping Interdiction’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 1017.Google Scholar

Blokker, Niels, ‘Outsourcing the Use of Force: Towards More Security Council Control of Authorized Operations?’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 202.Google Scholar

Bothe, Michael, ‘Neutrality in Naval Warfare, What Is Left of the Traditional Law?’ in Delissen, Astrid JM and Tanja, Gerard J (eds) Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Challenges Ahead (Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), 387.Google Scholar

Bruha, Thomas, ‘The General Assembly’s Definition of the Act of Aggression’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 142.Google Scholar

Chevalier-Watts, Juliet, ‘The Right to Life and Law Enforcement Activities: The Appropriateness of a Military Response to the Problem of Terrorism’ in Bessette, Murray SY (ed), Liberty and Security in the Age of Terrorism (Commonwealth Security Studies Laboratory, 2011) 33.Google Scholar

Crawford, James and Nicholson, Rowan, ‘The Continued Relevance of Established Rules and Institutions Relating to the Use of Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 96.Google Scholar

De Hoogh, André, ‘Jus Cogens and the Use of Armed Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 1162.Google Scholar

Forteau, Mathias and Ying Xiu, Alison See, ‘The US Hostage Rescue Operation in Iran – 1980’ in Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018) 306.Google Scholar

Francioni, Francesco, ‘Use of Force, Military Activities, and the New Law of the Sea’ in Cassese, Antonio (ed), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (Nijhoff, 1986) 371.Google Scholar

Glennon, Michael J, ‘The Limitations of Traditional Rules and Institutions Relating to the Use of Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 79.Google Scholar

Grewe, Wilhelm G and Khan, Daniel-Erasmus, ‘Drafting History’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2002) vol. I, 1.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘The Use of Force against Pirates’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 1057.Google Scholar

Harold, Scott W et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heathcote, Vasco, ‘Feminist Perspectives on the Law on the Use of Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 114.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff, ‘“Benevolent” Third States in International Armed Conflicts: The Myth of the Irrelevance of the Law of Neutrality’ in Schmitt, MN and Pejic, J (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines (Koninklijke Brill BV, 2007), 562.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff, ‘Blockades and Interdictions’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 925.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff, ‘Maritime Interception/Interdiction Operations’ in Gill, Terry D (ed), The Handbook of the International Law of Military Operations (Oxford University Press, 2010) 375.Google Scholar

Kadelbach, Stefan, ‘Interpretation of the Charter’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 71.Google Scholar

Klabbers, Jan, ‘International Organizations in the Formation of Customary International Law’ in Cannizzaro, Enzo and Palchetti, Paolo (eds), Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreß, Claus, ‘The International Court of Justice and the Non-Use of Force’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 561.Google Scholar

Kreß, Claus, ‘The State Conduct Element’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreß, Claus and Nußberger, Benjamin K, ‘The Entebbe Raid – 1976’ in Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018) 220.Google Scholar

Krisch, Nico, ‘Chapter VII Powers: The General Framework. Articles 39 to 43’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 1237.Google Scholar

Kypraios, Christos and Carpanelli, Elena, ‘Space Debris’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar

Lesaffer, Randall, ‘Too Much History: From War as Sanction to the Sanctioning of War’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 35.Google Scholar

Lubell, Noam, ‘The Problem of Imminence in an Uncertain World’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 697.Google Scholar

Mann, FA, ‘Reflections on the Prosecution of Persons Abducted in Breach of International Law’ in Dinstein, Yoram (ed), International Law in a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989) 411.Google Scholar

McDougall, Carrie, ‘The Crimes against Peace Precedent’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 49.Google Scholar

McMahon, Jeff, ‘Unjust War and the Crime of Aggression’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 1386.Google Scholar

Mégret, Frédéric, ‘What Is the Specific Evil of Aggression?’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 1398.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘The Prohibition of the Use of Force’ in White, Nigel D and Henderson, Christian (eds), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum (Elgar, 2013) 89.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘Taking Opinio Juris Seriously: A Classical Approach to International Law on the Use of Force’ in Cannizzaro, Enzo and Palchetti, Paolo (eds), Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, ‘Changing Jus Cogens through State Practice? The Case of the Prohibition of the Use of Force and Its Exceptions’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 157.Google Scholar

Palmisano, Giuseppe, ‘Determining the Law on the Use of Force: The ICJ and Customary Rules on the Use of Force’ in Cannizzaro, Enzo and Palchetti, Paolo (eds), Customary International Law on the Use of Force: A Methodological Approach (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005) 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pobjie, Erin, Declercq, Fanny and van Steenberghe, Raphaël, ‘The Killing of Khalil Al-Wazir by Israeli Commandos in Tunis – 1988’ in Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018) 403.Google Scholar

Popovski, Vesselin, ‘UNCLOS and the Peaceful Uses of the Sea’ in Hong, Nong, Wu, Shicun and Valencia, Mark (eds), UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the South China Sea (Ashgate Publishing, 2015) 73.Google Scholar

Randelzhofer, Albrecht and Dörr, Oliver, ‘Article 2(4)’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) 200.Google Scholar

Rensmann, Thilo, ‘Reform’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 25.Google Scholar

Röling, Bert VA, ‘The Ban on the Use of Force and the UN Charter’ in Cassese, Antonio (ed), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (Nijhoff, 1986) 3.Google Scholar

Ronzitti, Natalino, ‘The Legality of Covert Operations against Terrorism in Foreign States’ in Bianchi, Andrea (ed), Enforcing International Law Norms against Terrorism (Hart Publishing, 2004) 17.Google Scholar

Ronzitti, Natalino, ‘The Mayaguez Incident – 1975’ in Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018) 213.Google Scholar

Schachter, Oscar, ‘Entangled Treaty and Custom’ in Dinstein, Yoram (ed), International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989) 717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheffer, David, ‘Amending the Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 1480.Google Scholar

Schindler, Dietrich, ‘Transformations in the Law of Neutrality since 1945’, in Delissen, Astrid JM and Tanja, Gerard J (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead (Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) 367.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N, ‘The Use of Cyber Force and International Law’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 1110.Google Scholar

Schrijver, Nico, ‘The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 465.Google Scholar

Singh, Narinder, ‘India’ in Kreß, Claus and Barriga, Stefan (eds), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 1002.Google Scholar

Snyder, Glenn, ‘The Balance of Power and the Balance of Terror’, in Seabury, Paul (ed), The Balance of Power (Chandler, 1965)Google Scholar

Starski, Paulina, ‘The US Airstrike against the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters – 1993’ in Ruys, Tom and Corten, Olivier (eds), The Use of Force in International Law: A Case-Based Approach (Oxford University Press, 2018) 504.Google Scholar

Talmon, Stefan, ‘Article 2 (6)’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 252.Google Scholar

Tsagourias, Nicholas, ‘The Prohibition of Threats of Force’ in White, Nigel D and Henderson, Christian (eds), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and Jus post Bellum (Elgar, 2013) 67.Google Scholar

Weller, Marc, ‘Introduction: International Law and the Problem of War’ in Weller, Marc (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Witschel, Georg, ‘Article 108’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 2199.Google Scholar

Wolfrum, Rüdiger, ‘Article 1’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 107.Google Scholar

Wolfrum, Rüdiger, ‘Preamble’ in Simma, Bruno et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2012) vol. I, 45.Google Scholar

Akande, Dapo and Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, ‘Legal: Use of Force in Self-Defence to Recover Occupied Territory’ (2021) 32(4) European Journal of International Law 1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Craig H, ‘Limits on the Use of Force in Maritime Operations in Support of WMD Counter-Proliferation Initiatives’ [2006] (81) International Law Studies 77.Google Scholar

Baxter, RR, ‘Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary International Law’ (1965) 41 British Yearbook of International Law 275.Google Scholar

Baxter, RR, ‘Treaties and Custom’ (1970) 129 Recueil des cours: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 25.Google Scholar

Benvenisti, Eyal and Downs, George W, ‘The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law’ (2007) 60 Stanford Law Review 595.Google Scholar

Bianchi, Andrea, ‘The International Regulation of the Use of Force: The Politics of Interpretive Method’ (2009) 22(4) Leiden Journal of International Law 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boley, Aaron C and Byers, Michael, ‘Satellite Mega-Constellations Create Risks in Low Earth Orbit, the Atmosphere and on Earth’ (2021) 11(1) Scientific Reports 10642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bridge, Robert L, ‘International Law and Military Activities in Outer Space’ (1979) 13 Akron Law Review 649.Google Scholar

Broms, Bengt, ‘The Definition of Aggression’ (1977) 154 Recueil des cours 348.Google Scholar

Brownlie, Ian, ‘International Law and the Use of Force by States Revisited’ (2002) 1 Chinese Journal of International Law 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchan, Russell, ‘Cyber Attacks: Unlawful Uses of Force or Prohibited Interventions?’ (2012) 17(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butchard, Patrick M, ‘Back to San Francisco: Explaining the Inherent Contradictions of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter’ (2018) 23(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, Bin, ‘United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: “Instant” International Customary Law?’ (1965) 5 Indian Journal of International Law 36.Google Scholar

Cheng, Dean, ‘Space Deterrence, the U.S.-Japan Alliance, and Asian Security: A U.S. Perspective’, in Harold, Scott W et al, The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 74.Google Scholar

Corten, Olivier, ‘The Russian Intervention in the Ukrainian Crisis: Was Jus Contra Bellum “Confirmed Rather than Weakened”?’ (2015) 2(1) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corthay, Eric Louis, ‘Legal Bases for Forcible Maritime Interdiction Operations against Terrorist Threat on the High Seas’ (2018) 31(2) Australian and New Zealand Maritime Law Journal 53.Google Scholar

Davis, John A, ‘The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterrence in Cyberspace’, in Harold, Scott W et al, The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 41.Google Scholar

Dev, Priyanka R, ‘“Use of Force” and “Armed Attack” Thresholds in Cyber Conflict: The Looming Definitional Gaps and the Growing Need for Formal UN Response’ (2015) 50(2) Texas International Law Journal 2.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The Interaction between Customary International Law and Treaties’ (2006) 322 Recueil des cours: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 243.Google Scholar

Farrant, James ‘Modern Maritime Neutrality Law’ (2014) 90 International Law Studies 198.Google Scholar

Ferencz, Benjamin B, ‘The Illegal Use of Armed Force as a Crime against Humanity’ (2015) 2(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferreira-Snyman, Anel, ‘Selected Legal Challenges Relating to the Military Use of Outer Space, with Specific Reference to Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty’ (2015) 18(3) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Focarelli, Carlo, ‘Promotional Jus Cogens: A Critical Appraisal of Jus Cogens’ Legal Effects’ (2008) 77(4) Nordic Journal of International Law 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ford, Stuart, ‘Legal Processes of Change: Article 2(4) and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ (1999) 4(1) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Francioni, Francesco, ‘Peacetime Use of Force, Military Activities, and the New Law of the Sea’ (1985) 18 Cornell International Law Journal 203.Google Scholar

Franck, Thomas M, ‘Legitimacy in the International System’ (1988) 82(4) American Journal of International Law 705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, Adeo, ‘From the Kalashnikov to the Keyboard: International Law’s Failure to Define a Cyber Use of Force Is Dangerous and May Lead to a Military Response to a Cyber Use of Force’ (2016) 15 Hibernian Law Journal 86.Google Scholar

Fukuda, Junichi, ‘A Japanese Perspective on the Role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance in Deterring – Or, if Necessary, Defeating – Maritime Gray Zone Coercion? in Scott W Harold et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 23.Google Scholar

Gill, TD, ‘The Forcible Protection, Affirmation and Exercise of Rights by States under Contemporary International Law’ (1992) 23 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilmore, William C, ‘Narcotics Interdiction at Sea: UK–US Cooperation’ [1989] Marine Policy 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Wallensteen, Peter, Eriksson, Mikael, Sollenberg, Margareta and Strand, Håvard, ‘Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset’ (2002) 39(5) Journal of Peace Research 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glennon, Michael J, ‘How International Rules Die’ (2005) 93(3) Georgetown Law Journal 939.Google Scholar

Glennon, Michael J, ‘Why the Security Council Failed’ [2003] 82(3) (May/June 2003) Foreign Affairs 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, James A, ‘Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of the Use of Force’ (2010) 32 Michigan Journal of International Law 215.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘Counter-Piracy Law Enforcement and Human Rights’ (2010) 59(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘Interdicting Vessels to Enforce the Common Interest: Maritime Countermeasures and the Use of Force’ (2007) 56(1) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘The Mavi Marmara Incident and Blockade in Armed Conflict’ (2011) 81(1) British Yearbook of International Law 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamamoto, Yukiya, ‘The Incident of a Submarine Navigating Underwater in Japan’s Territorial Sea’ (2005) 48 The Japanese Annual of International Law 123.Google Scholar

Harold, Scott W, ‘Conclusion: Leveraging the U.S.-Japan Alliance to Deter Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains’ in Harold, Scott W et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henry, Etienne, ‘The Sukhoi Su-24 Incident between Russia and Turkey’ (2016) 4(1) Russian Law Journal 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofer, Alexandra, ‘The Developed/Developing Divide on Unilateral Coercive Measures: Legitimate Enforcement or Illegitimate Intervention?’ (2017) 16(2) Chinese Journal of International Law 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jones, Daniel M, Bremer, Stuart A and Singer, J David, ‘Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns’ (1996) 15(2) Conflict Management and Peace Science 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahgan, Carin, ‘Jus Cogens and the Inherent Right to Self-Defense’ (1996) 3 ISLA Journal of International & Comparative Law 767.Google Scholar

Kegley, Charles W and Raymond, Gregory A, ‘Normative Constraints on the Use of Force Short of War’ (1986) 23(3) Journal of Peace Research 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keyuan, Zou, ‘Maritime Enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolutions: Use of Force and Coercive Measures’ (2011) 26(2) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, Matthew T, ‘Sovereignty’s Gray Area: The Delimitation of Air and Space in the Context of Aerospace Vehicles and the Use of Force’ (2016) 81 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 377.Google Scholar

Kolb, Robert, ‘Le droit contre la guerre’ (2014) 1(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 395.Google Scholar

Kono, Keiko, ‘A Japanese Perspective on Deterrence in Cyberspace Gray Zone Contingencies and the Role of the Japan-U.S. Alliance’ in Harold, Scott W et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 62.Google Scholar

Kretzmer, David, ‘The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum’ (2013) 24(1) European Journal of International Law 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kwast, Patricia Jimenez, ‘Maritime Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: Reflections on the Categorisation of Forcible Action at Sea in the Light of the Guyana/Suriname Award’ (2008) 13(1) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, David L, ‘Security Issues and the Law of the Sea: A General Framework’ (1985) 15(2) Ocean Development & International Law 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linderfalk, Ulf, ‘The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think about the Consequences?’ (2007) 18(5) European Journal of International Law 853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lubell, Noam, ‘Fragmented Wars: Multi-Territorial Military Operations against Armed Groups’ (2017) 93(1) International Law Studies 213.Google Scholar

Luke, Ivan T, ‘Naval Operations in Peacetime: Not Just “Warfare Lite”’ (2013) 66(2) Naval War College Review 11.Google Scholar

McDermott, Helen, ‘Extraterritorial Kidnapping and the Rules on Interstate Force’ (2014) 1(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 299.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, Rob, ‘United Nations Mandated Naval Interdiction Operations in the Territorial Sea?’ (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikanagi, Tomohiro, ‘Establishing a Military Presence in a Disputed Territory: Interpretation of Article 2(3) and (4) of the UN Charter’ (2018) 67(4) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mikanagi, Tomohiro, ‘The Legal Basis of Missile Defence – An Examination of the Japanese Situation’ (2005) 48 The Japanese Annual of International Law 65.Google Scholar

Mikanagi, Tomohiro and Ogi, Hirohito, ‘The Japanese View on Legal Issues Related to Security’ (2016) 59 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 360.Google Scholar

Morgernstern, Felice, ‘Jurisdiction in Seizures Effected in Violation of International Law’ (1952) 29 British Yearbook of International Law 265.Google Scholar

Murphy, Sean D, ‘Protean Jus Ad Bellum’ (2009) 27 Berkeley Journal of International Law 22.Google Scholar

Nakagawa, Yoshiaki, ‘Using Land Forces to Deter Maritime Gray Zone Coercion: The Role of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Forces in the Nansei (Ryukyu) Islands’ in Harold, Scott W et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 11.Google Scholar

Neff, Stephen C, ‘Towards a Law of Unarmed Conflict: A Proposal for a New International Law of Hostility’ (1995) 28(1) Cornell International Law Journal 1.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘Twenty-first Century Arms Control Challenges: Drones, Cyber Weapons, Killer Robots, and WMDs’ (2015) 13(3) Washington University Global Studies Law Review 515.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘Cyber Security without Cyber War’ (2012) 17(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Higgins, Paul, ‘Unlawful Seizure and Irregular Extradition’ (1960) 36 British Yearbook of International Law 319.Google Scholar

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, ‘Undesired, Yet Omnipresent: Jus Ad Bellum in Its Relation to Other Areas of International Law’ (2015) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 1.Google Scholar

Paddeu, Federica I, ‘Military Assistance on Request and General Reasons against Force: Consent as a Defence to the Prohibition of the Use of Force’ (2020) 7(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paddeu, Federica I, ‘Self-Defence as a Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness: Understanding Article 21 of the Articles on State Responsibility’ (2015) 85(1) British Yearbook of International Law 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palmer, Glenn, D’Orazio, Vito, Kenwick, Michael and Lane, Mathew, ‘The Mid4 Dataset, 2002–2010: Procedures, Coding Rules and Description’ (2015) 32 Conflict Management and Peace Science 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paulus, Andreas, ‘Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation – An Attempt at a Reappraisal’ (2005) 74(3) Nordic Journal of International Law 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paulus, Andreas, ‘Realism and International Law: Two Optics in Need of Each Other’ (2002) 96 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rayfuse, Rosemary, ‘Countermeasures and High Seas Fisheries Enforcement’ (2004) 51(1) Netherlands International Law Review 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reisman, Michael, ‘Criteria for the Lawful Use of Force in International Law’ (1985) 10 Yale Journal of International Law 279.Google Scholar

Reisman, Michael, ‘International Incidents: Introduction to a New Genre in the Study of International Law’ (1984) 10 Yale Journal of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Roberts, Anthea Elizabeth, ‘Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation’ (2001) 95(4) American Journal of International Law 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roxin, Claus, ‘Verwerflichkeit und Sittenwidrigkeit als unrechtsbegründende Merkmale im Strafrecht’ (1964) JuS 373.Google Scholar

Ruys, Tom, ‘The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2 (4)?’ (2014) 108(2) American Journal of International Law 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruys, Tom, ‘The “Protection of Nationals” Doctrine Revisited’ (2008) 13(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruys, Tom and Silvestre, Felipe Rodríguez, ‘Illegal: The Recourse to Force to Recover Occupied Territory and the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War’ (2021) 32(4) European Journal of International Law 1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadurska, Romana, ‘Foreign Submarines in Swedish Waters: The Erosion of an International Norm’ (1984) 10 Yale Journal of International Law 34.Google Scholar

Sadurska, Romana, ‘Threats of Force’ (1988) 82(2) American Journal of International Law 239.Google Scholar

Schachter, Oscar, ‘The Right of States to Use Armed Force’ (1984) 82(5/6) Michigan Law Review 1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scharf, Michael P, ‘On the Relation between Unlawful Use of Force and the War Crime of Disproportionate Force Not Justified by Military Necessity, Benjamin B. Ferencz Essay Competition, Second Edition: Introduction’ (2016) 48 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 213.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N, ‘Classification of Cyber Conflict’ (2012) 17(2) Journal of Conflict and Security Law 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N, ‘Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative Framework’ (1999) 37 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1998.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Michael N, ‘Cyber Operations in International Law: The Use of Force, Collective Security, Self-Defense, and Armed Attack’ in Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy (2010) 155.Google Scholar

Slaughter, Anne-Marie and William, W Burke-White, ‘An International Constitutional Moment’ (2002) 43 Harvard International Law Journal 1.Google Scholar

Spiermann, Ole, ‘Humanitarian Intervention as a Necessity and the Threat or Use of Jus Cogens’ (2002) 71(4) Nordic Journal of International Law 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steenberghe, Raphaël van, ‘State Practice and the Evolution of the Law of Self-Defence: Clarifying the Methodological Debate’ (2015) 2(1) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephens, Dale, ‘Rules of Engagement and the Concept of Unit Self Defense’ (1998) 45 Naval Law Review 126.Google Scholar

Suzuki, Kazuto, ‘A Japanese Perspective on Space Deterrence and the Role of the U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterrence in Outer Space’ in Harold, Scott W et al (eds), The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Deterring Gray Zone Coercion in the Maritime, Cyber, and Space Domains (RAND Corporation, 2017) 91.Google Scholar

Talmon, Stefan, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’ (2015) 26(2) European Journal of International Law 417.Google Scholar

Tams, Christian J, ‘Meta-Custom and the Court: A Study in Judicial Law-Making’ (2015) 14(1) The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thirlway, Hugh WA, ‘Professor Baxter’s Legacy: Still Paradoxical?’ (2017) 6(3) ESIL Reflection 1.Google Scholar

Tomka, Peter, ‘Custom and the International Court of Justice’ (2013) 12(2) The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tondini, Matteo, ‘The Use of Force in the Course of Maritime Law Enforcement Operations’ (2017) 4(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Treves, Tullio, ‘Piracy, Law of the Sea, and Use of Force: Developments off the Coast of Somalia’ (2009) 20(2) European Journal of International Law 399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trumbull, Charles P IV, ‘The Basis of Unit Self-Defense and Implications for the Use of Force’ (2012) 23 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 121.Google Scholar

Tuffi Saliba, Aziz, Lopes, Dawisson Belém and Vieira, Pedro, ‘Brazil’s Rendition of the “Responsibility to Protect” Doctrine’ (2015) 3(2) Brasiliana – Journal for Brazilian Studies 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, ‘The Right to Be Free from Economic Coercion’ (2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Logchem, Youri, ‘Submarine Telecommunication Cables in Disputed Maritime Areas’ (2014) 45(1) Ocean Development & International Law 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vasilogeorgi, Isavella Maria, ‘Military Uses of Outer Space: Legal Limitations, Contemporary Perspectives’ (2014) 39(2) Journal of Space Law 379.Google Scholar

Verdebout, Agatha, ‘The Contemporary Discourse on the Use of Force in the Nineteenth Century: A Diachronic and Critical Analysis’ (2014) 1(2) Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 223.Google Scholar

Walker, Neil, ‘Beyond Boundary Disputes and Basic Grids: Mapping the Global Disorder of Normative Orders’ (2008) 6(3–4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waxman, Matthew C, ‘Cyber-Attacks and the Use of Force: Back to the Future of Article 2 (4)’ (2011) 36 Yale Journal of International Law 421.Google Scholar

de Wet, Erika, ‘Military Assistance Based on Ex-Ante Consent: A Violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter?’ (2020) 93(3–4) Die Friedens-Warte 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Willard, Andrew R, ‘Incidents: An Essay in Method’ (1984) 10 Yale Journal of International Law 21.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘The Law on the Use of Force: Current Challenges’ (2007) 11 Singapore Year Book of International Law 1.Google Scholar

Yahn Filho, Armando Gallo, ‘Environmental Aggression in the Context of Contemporary International Law’ (2016) 4(25) Environmental Quality Management 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwanenburg, Marten, Bothe, Michael and Sassòli, Marco, ‘Is the Law of Occupation Applicable to the Invasion Phase?’ (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross 29.Google Scholar

Akande, Dapo, ‘The Use of Nerve Agents in Salisbury: Why Does It Matter Whether It Amounts to a Use of Force in International Law?’, EJIL: Talk! (17 March 2018), www.ejiltalk.org/the-use-of-nerve-agents-in-salisbury-why-does-it-matter-whether-it-amounts-to-a-use-of-force-in-international-law/.Google Scholar

Bodansky, Daniel, ‘Does Custom Have a Source?’, AJIL Unbound (23 December 2014), www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/does-custom-have-a-source/FA9588611B2C214F602CE7FFC40C663B.Google Scholar

Cohen, Harlan G, ‘Methodology and Misdirection: Custom and the ICJ’, EJIL: Talk! (1 December 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/methodology-and-misdirection-a-response-to-stefan-talmon-on-custom-and-the-icj/.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, Douglas, ‘A New Twist in the South China Sea Arbitration: The Chinese Society of International Law’s Critical Study’, EJIL: Talk! (25 May 2018), www.ejiltalk.org/a-new-twist-in-the-south-china-sea-arbitration-the-chinese-society-of-international-laws-critical-study/#more-16226.Google Scholar

Henderson, Ian and Cavanagh, Bryan, ‘Guest Post: Military Members Claiming Self-Defence during Armed Conflict-Often Misguided and Unhelpful’, Opinio Juris (8 July 2014), http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/08/guest-post-military-members-claiming-self-defence-armed-conflict-often-misguided-unhelpful/.Google Scholar

Henderson, Ian and Cavanagh, Bryan, ‘Guest Post: Unit Self-Defence’, Opinio Juris (11 July 2014), http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/11/guest-post-unit-self-defence/.Google Scholar

Lusa Bordin, Fernando, ‘Induction, Assertion and the Limits of the Existing Methodologies to Identify Customary International Law’, EJIL: Talk! (2 December 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/induction-assertion-and-the-limits-of-the-existing-methodologies-to-identify-customary-international-law/.Google Scholar

Mačák, Kubo, ‘Was the Downing of the Russian Jet by Turkey Illegal?’, EJIL: Talk! (26 November 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/was-the-downing-of-the-russian-jet-by-turkey-illegal/.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘The True Meaning of Force’, AJIL Unbound (4 August 2014), www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/true-meaning-of-force/0D138765D49FF766167A479AB081BD27.Google Scholar

O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘The True Meaning of Force: A Further Response to Tom Ruys in the Interest of Peace’, AJIL Unbound (4 September 2014), www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/true-meaning-of-force-a-further-response-to-tom-ruys-in-the-interest-of-peace/F7C06C746AF3764F1E8E832C7E42EEB2.Google Scholar

Ohlin, Jens David, ‘Guest Post: Henderson & Cavanagh on Self-Defense & The Privilege of Combatancy’, Opinio Juris (8 July 2014), http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/08/guest-post-henderson-cavanagh-self-defense-privilege-combatancy/.Google Scholar

Ruys, Tom, ‘“License to Kill” in Salisbury: State-Sponsored Assassinations and the Jus Ad Bellum’, Just Security (15 March 2018), www.justsecurity.org/53924/license-kill-salisbury-state-sponsored-assassinations-jus-ad-bellum/.Google Scholar

Ruys, Tom, ‘The True Meaning of Force – A Reply to Mary Ellen O’Connell’, AJIL Unbound (3 September 2014), www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/true-meaning-of-forcea-reply-to-mary-ellen-oconnell/51D11D4211279058578434DD6A936BE9.Google Scholar

Sender, Omri and Wood, Michael, ‘The International Court of Justice and Customary International Law: A Reply to Stefan Talmon’, EJIL: Talk! (30 November 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justice-and-customary-international-law-a-reply-to-stefan-talmon/.Google Scholar

Talmon, Stefan, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’, EJIL: Talk! (27 November 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/determining-customary-international-law-the-icjs-methodology-between-induction-deduction-and-assertion/.Google Scholar

Talmon, Stefan, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology and the Idyllic World of the ILC’, EJIL: Talk! (3 December 2015), www.ejiltalk.org/determining-customary-international-law-the-icjs-methodology-and-the-idyllic-world-of-the-ilc/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weller, Marc, ‘An International Use of Force in Salisbury?’, EJIL: Talk! (14 March 2018), www.ejiltalk.org/an-international-use-of-force-in-salisbury/.Google Scholar

Weller, Marc, ‘Striking ISIL: Aspects of the Law on the Use of Force’, ASIL Insights (11 March 2015), www.asil.org/insights/volume/19/issue/5/striking-isil-aspects-law-use-force.Google Scholar

‘Articles on State Responsibility’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2001), vol. II.Google Scholar

Crawford, James, Second Report on State Responsibility (30 April 1999) UN Doc A/CN.4/498/Add.2.Google Scholar

Fifth Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (October 1969) UN Doc A/7619.Google Scholar

First Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (16 November 1964) UN Doc A/5746.Google Scholar

Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (November 1968) UN Doc A/7326.Google Scholar

‘Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict on Georgia, Report’ (2009), available at www.mpil.de/en/pub/publications/archive/independent_international_fact.cfm.Google Scholar

International Law Association Committee on Formation of Customary (General) International Law, ‘Final Report of the Committee: Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law’ (2000).Google Scholar

International Law Association Committee on the Use of Force, ‘Final Report on Aggression and the Use of Force’ (2018).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session’ (2001) UN Doc A/56/10.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens)’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2022), vol. II, Part Two.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries’, UN Doc A/73/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (2018), vol. II, Part Two.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties’, Annexed to UN GA Resolution 73/202 (A/RES/73/202, 3 January 2019).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law – Elements in the Previous Work of the International Law Commission That Could Be Particularly Relevant to the Topic – Memorandum by the Secretariat’ (14 March 2013) UN Doc A/CN.4/659.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Fourth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur’ UN Doc A/CN.4/727 (31 January 2019).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Identification of Customary International Law: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Gilberto Saboia’ (7 August 2014).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Identification of Customary International Law: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Mathias Forteau’ (29 July 2015).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Identification of Customary International Law: Text of the Draft Conclusions Provisionally Adopted by the Drafting Committee’ (14 July 2015) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.869.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Identification of Customary International Law: The Role of Decisions of National Courts in the Case Law of International Courts and Tribunals of a Universal Character for the Purpose of the Determination of Customary International Law – Memorandum by the Secretariat’ (9 February 2016) UN Doc A/CN.4/691.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Thirty-Second Session’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1980), vol. II(2), 1.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Eighteenth Session, 4 May–19 July 1966, Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-First Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/6309/Rev.1)’ (1966) UN Doc A/CN.4/191.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Text of Draft Conclusions 1–5 Provisionally Adopted by the Drafting Committee at the Sixty-Fifth Session of the International Law Commission’ (24 May 2013) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.813.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Texts and Titles of Draft Conclusions 6 to 10 Provisionally Adopted by the Drafting Committee on 27 and 28 May and on 2 and 3 June 2014’ (3 June 2014) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.833.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties Text and Title of Draft Conclusion 11 Provisionally Adopted by the Drafting Committee on 4 June 2015’ (19 June 2015) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.854.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Dire Tladi’ (31 May 2013).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Gilberto Vergne Saboia’ (5 June 2014).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties: Statement of the Chair of the Drafting Committee, Mr. Mathias Forteau’ (8 July 2015).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, ‘Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, Vol. II’ (1966) UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.l.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, 1950 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II (6 June 1957) UN Doc A/CN.4/Ser.A/1950/Add.1.Google Scholar

Nolte, Georg, ‘First Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to Treaty Interpretation’ (19 March 2013) UN Doc A/CN.4/660.Google Scholar

Nolte, Georg, ‘Second Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties’, (International Law Commission, 26 March 2014) UN Doc A/CN.4/671.Google Scholar

Nolte, Georg, ‘Third Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties’, (International Law Commission, 7 April 2015) UN Doc A/CN.4/683.Google Scholar

Second Report of the 1966 Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States) (27 June 1966) UN Doc A/6230.Google Scholar

Sixth Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (31 March to 1 May 1970) UN Doc A/8018.Google Scholar

Third Report of the Special Committee on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (26 September 1967) UN Doc A/6799.Google Scholar

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), Existing Legal and Regulatory Frameworks concerning Threats Arising from State Behaviours with Respect to Outer Space (Advance Unedited Version) (No A/AC.294/2022/WP.1, 5 May 2022).Google Scholar

US White House, ‘Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations’ (December 2016)Google Scholar

Weedon, Brian and Samson, Victoria (eds), Secure World Foundation Global Counterspace Capabilities Report (Secure World Foundation, April 2022) https://swfound.org/media/207350/swf_global_counterspace_capabilities_2022_rev2.pdf.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law’ (International Law Commission, 17 May 2013) UN Doc A/CN.4/663.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law – Note by Michael Wood, Special Rapporteur’ (30 May 2012) UN Doc A/CN.4/653.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘Fourth Report on Identification of Customary International Law’ (6 March 2016) UN Doc A/CN.4/695.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law’ (22 May 2014) UN Doc A/CN.4/672.Google Scholar

Wood, Michael, ‘Third Report on Identification of Customary International Law’ (International Law Commission, 27 March 2015) UN Doc A/CN.4/682.Google Scholar

Associated Press in Stockholm, ‘Sweden Confirms Submarine Violation’, The Guardian (14 November 2014) www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/sweden-confirms-submarine-violation.Google Scholar

Barnes, Julian E, ‘U.S. Cyberattack Hurt Iran’s Ability to Target Oil Tankers, Officials Say’, New York Times (28 August 2019) www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/politics/us-iran-cyber-attack.html.Google Scholar

Brent, Laura, ‘NATO’s Role in Cyberspace’, NATO Review (12 February 2019) www.nato.int/docu/review/2019/Also-in-2019/natos-role-in-cyberspace-alliance-defence/EN/index.htm.Google Scholar

Chappell, Bill, ‘Former Spy Sergei Skripal Released from Hospital, Recovering from Exotic Nerve Agent’, NPR (18 May 2018) www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/18/612259535/former-spy-sergei-skripal-released-from-hospital-recovering-from-exotic-nerve-ag.Google Scholar

Corera, Gordon, ‘Salisbury Poisoning: What Did the Attack Mean for the UK and Russia?’ BBC News (4 March 2020), www.bbc.com/news/uk-51722301.Google Scholar

Coskun, Orhan, ‘Turkish Military Enters Syria to Evacuate Soldiers, Relocate Tomb’, Reuters (22 February 2015) www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/22/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSKBN0LQ03U20150222.Google Scholar

Kraska, James, ‘China’s Maritime Militia Upends Rules on Naval Warfare’, The Diplomat (10 August 2015) https://thediplomat.com/2015/08/chinas-maritime-militia-upends-rules-on-naval-warfare/.Google Scholar

Langbroek, Marco, ‘A NEMESIS in the Sky: PAN, MENTOR 4, and Close Encounters of the SIGINT Kind’, The Space Review (31 October 2016) www.thespacereview.com/article/3095/1.Google Scholar

‘MIDEAST – Turkey Shoots down Russian Jet for Airspace Violation near Syrian Border’, The Hurriyet Daily News (24 November 2015) www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-shoots-down-russian-jet-for-airspace-violation-near-syrian-border.aspx?pageID=238&nID=91580&NewsCatID=352.Google Scholar

Murphy, Simon, ‘Met Confirms Second Police Officer Was Victim of Salisbury Attack’, The Guardian (15 August 2019) www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/15/met-confirms-second-police-officer-was-victim-of-salisbury-attack.Google Scholar

Reuters, ‘Turkish Prime Minister’s Visit to Tomb in Syria Likely to Anger Damascus’, The Guardian (11 May 2015) www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/turkish-prime-ministers-visit-to-tomb-in-syria-likely-to-anger-damascus.Google Scholar

Roulette, Joey, ‘Debris from Test of Russian Antisatellite Weapon Forces Astronauts to Shelter’, The New York Times (16 November 2021) www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/science/russia-anti-satellite-missile-test-debris.html.Google Scholar

‘Russian Spy: What Are Nerve Agents and What Do They Do?’, BBC News (12 March 2018), www.bbc.com/news/health-43328976.Google Scholar

‘Russian Spy: What Happened to the Skripals?’, BBC News (18 April 2018) www.bbc.com/news/uk-43643025.Google Scholar

‘Sergei Skripal: Who Is the Former Russian Intelligence Officer?’ BBC News (29 March 2018), www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43291394.Google Scholar

Shaheen, Kareem et al, ‘Putin Condemns Turkey after Russian Warplane Downed near Syria Border’ The Guardian (24 November 2015) www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other.Google Scholar

Stamm, Peter, ‘Switzerland Invades Liechtenstein’, The New York Times (13 March 2007) www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13iht-edstamm.4893796.html.Google Scholar

Wikileaks, ‘Turkey’s Statement: Claims Russia Violated Airspace for Just “17 Seconds” with Very Slow 243 Miles/Hour http://Jet.Pic.Twitter.Com/Knhdy0RWIA’, @wikileaks (24 November 2015) https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/669204928984915968/photo/1.Google Scholar

Worley, Mark, ‘Turkey Downs Russian Jet’, Al Jazeera (24 November 2015) http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Turkey_downs_Russian_jet/207503335.Google Scholar

38 North, ‘A Quick Technical Analysis of the Hwasong-12’ (19 May 2017), www.38north.org/2017/05/hwasong051917/.Google Scholar

Arms Control Association, ‘Chronology of US-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy’ (2018), www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.Google Scholar

Australian Government, ‘2017 Foreign Policy White Paper’ (2017) www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au.Google Scholar

Australian Government, Australia Advances Responsible Action in Space: Joint Media Release of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence and Minister for Industry and Science (27 October 2022) www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/australia-advances-responsible-action-space?utm_source=nationaltribune&utm_medium=nationaltribune&utm_campaign=news.Google Scholar

Australian Government, ‘Statement for Plenary Session on International Peace and Security, Speech by Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Hon Julie Bishop MP’, (17 April 2015) www.foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2015/jb_sp_150417.aspx.Google Scholar

Canada’s Views on Reducing Space Threats through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behaviour (Advanced Unedited Version) (2022) UN Doc A/AC.294/2022/WP.7.Google Scholar

Canadian Space Agency, ‘CubeSats in a Nutshell’ (6 May 2022) www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/cubesat/what-is-a-cubesat.asp.Google Scholar

Correlates of War Project, Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID 4), www.correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/MIDs.Google Scholar

Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, De Minimis Non Curat Lex Definition, www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DeMinimisNonCuratLex.aspx.Google Scholar

German Government, Antrag der Bundesregierung: Einsatz bewaffneter deutscher Streitkräfte zur Verhütung und Unterbindung terroristischer Handlungen durch die Terrororganisation IS auf Grundlage von Artikel 51 der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen in Verbindung mit Artikel 42 Absatz 7 des Vertrages über die Europäische Union sowie den Resolutionen 2170 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2249 (2015) des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen (1 December 2015) Drucksache 18/6866.Google Scholar

German Government, Criminal Code in the Version Promulgated on 13 November 1998, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I p. 3322, Last Amended by Article 1 of the Law of 24 September 2013, Federal Law Gazette I p. 3671 and with the Text of Article 6(18) of the Law of 10 October 2013, Federal Law Gazette I p. 3799.Google Scholar

von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel, ‘Blockade’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, October 2015) http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e252.Google Scholar

Hobe, Stephan, ‘Airspace’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, May 2008) http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1138.Google Scholar

International Committee for the Red Cross, Commentary to the Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in the Armed Forces in the Field (2nd ed, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

International Committee for the Red Cross, Customary IHL Database, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul.Google Scholar

International Committee for the Red Cross, The Potential Human Cost of the Use of Weapons in Outer Space and the Protection Afforded by International Humanitarian Law (9 April 2021).Google Scholar

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Japan-North Korea Relations’ (18 January 2019) www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/n_korea/index.html.Google Scholar

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘North Korea’s Missile Launch’ (23 December 2017) www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/kp/page4e_000714.html.Google Scholar

McLaughlin, Rob, ‘Some Contributions from Asia to the Development of LOAC’, Speech Delivered at International Law Association Meeting, South Africa (2016) (on file with author).Google Scholar

Merriam Webster Dictionary, ‘De Minimis’, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/de minimis.Google Scholar

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Decision Not to Conduct Destructive, Direct-Ascent Anti-Satellite Missile Testing (13 September 2022) www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press3e_000451.html.Google Scholar

New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, ‘Otago Foreign Policy School, Opening Address’, New Zealand Government (1 July 2022) www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/otago-foreign-policy-school-opening-address.Google Scholar

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Brussels Summit Communiqué Issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2021) (14 June 2021) www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm.Google Scholar

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ‘NATO’s Approach to Space’ (2 December 2021) www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_175419.htm.Google Scholar

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ‘Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the Use of a Nerve Agent in Salisbury’ (14 March 2018) www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_152787.htm.Google Scholar

OED Online, ‘Force, n.1’ (Oxford University Press, December 2018) www.oed.com/view/Entry/72847#eid4006249.Google Scholar

OED Online, ‘Kinetic, Adj. and N.’ (Oxford University Press, December 2018) www.oed.com/view/Entry/103498.Google Scholar

OED Online, ‘Use, N.’ (Oxford University Press, December 2018) www.oed.com/view/Entry/220635.Google Scholar

Outer Space Institute, ‘International Open Letter Re: Kinetic ASAT Test Ban Treaty’ (2 September 2021) https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/docs/OSI_International_Open_Letter_ASATs_PUBLIC.pdf.Google Scholar

Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in Geneva, Tweet posted 9 May 2022 at 4:25 PM, https://twitter.com/CanadaGeneva/status/1523685496399966209.Google Scholar

Remarks by Harold Hongju Koh, ‘International Law in Cyberspace’ (at the USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference, Ft. Meade, MD, 18 September 2012) https://2009–2017.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/197924.htm.Google Scholar

Space Security Index, Electromagnetic Interference with Space Systems (November 2020), https://spacesecurityindex.org/2020/11/electromagnetic-interference-with-space-systems/.Google Scholar

Statement by Germany in the Open-Ended Working Group on Reducing Space Threats through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behaviours (13 September 2022) https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/220913-Statement-by-Germany-on-13-September.pdf.Google Scholar

UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and UK Space Agency, Responsible Space Behaviours: The UK Commits Not to Destructively Test Direct Ascent Anti-Satellite Missiles (3 October 2022) www.gov.uk/government/news/responsible-space-behaviours-the-uk-commits-not-to-destructively-test-direct-ascent-anti-satellite-missiles.Google Scholar

UK Government, ‘Foreign Secretary’s Remarks on the Use of a Nerve Agent in Salisbury’ (13 March 2018) www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-remarks-on-the-use-of-a-nerve-agent-in-salisbury-13-march-2018.Google Scholar

UK Government, ‘PM Commons Statement on Salisbury Incident Response: A Statement to the House of Commons by Prime Minister Theresa May following the Salisbury Incident’ (14 March 2018) www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-commons-statement-on-salisbury-incident-response-14-march-2018.Google Scholar

UK Government, ‘The Russian State Was Responsible for the Attempted Murder … and for Threatening the Lives of Other British Citizens in Salisbury: Statement by Ambassador Jonathan Allen, Chargé d’Affaires, at a UN Security Council Briefing on a Nerve Agent attack in Salisbury’ (14 March 2018) www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-russian-state-was-responsible-for-the-attempted-murderand-for-threatening-the-lives-of-other-british-citizens-in-salisbury.Google Scholar

United States and Defense Intelligence Agency, Challenges to Security in Space: Space Reliance in an Era of Competition and Expansion (2022) www.dia.mil/Portals/110/Documents/News/Military_Power_Publications/Challenges_Security_Space_2022.pdf.Google Scholar

Uppsala Conflict Data Program, UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset, www.prio.org/Data/Armed-Conflict/UCDP-PRIO/.Google Scholar

US Government, ‘Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum – “Legal and Policy Transparency Concerning United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations” and Accompanying Report on Transparency in Legal and Policy Frameworks’ (5 December 2016) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/05/fact-sheet-presidential-memorandum-legal-and-policy-transparency.Google Scholar

US White House, Vice President Harris Advances National Security Norms in Space (19 April 2022) www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/18/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-advances-national-security-norms-in-space/.Google Scholar