Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

17 results

  • 9 - Divergent Views on the Content and Relevance of the Jus ad Bellum in Europe and the United States?

  • from 3 - International Law and the Use of Force
  • Edited by Chiara Giorgetti, University of Richmond, Guglielmo Verdirame, King's College London
  • Book:
    Whither the West?
    Published online:
    29 April 2021
    Print publication:
    29 April 2021, pp 231-264

  • Summary

    This chapter studies the idea that Americans and Europeans hold different views on global security. Generally, it is considered that the EU side demonstrates a stronger adherence to positivism in international law, while the US adopts policy-oriented methodologies. This translates into different views of the actual content of the UN Charter rules on the use of force, for example of the permissibility of self-defense against attacks by non-State actors, calls for new exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force and in relation to controversial issues, such as the legality of the anticipatory self-defense. The chapter offers a critical look at the alleged difference by studying the US-led military coalition fighting against the so-called Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This reveals a gradual acceptance of the more expansionist interpretation put forward by the US. Indeed, the case of the US-led military coalition against IS is one where European States - and several other western States - originally steered clear from murky legal grounds only to find themselves ultimately embracing an extensive reading of the right of self-defense, and relying for the first time, whether explicitly or implicitly, on the controversial “unable and unwilling” doctrine to justify military operations abroad.

The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law
  • Edited by Tom Ruys, Nicolas Angelet, Luca Ferro
  • Published online:
    26 May 2019
    Print publication:
    02 May 2019
  • Few topics of international law speak to the imagination as much as international immunities. Questions pertaining to immunity from jurisdiction or execution under international law surface on a frequent basis before national courts, including at the highest levels of the judicial branch and before international courts or tribunals. Nevertheless, international immunity law is and remains a challenging field for practitioners and scholars alike. Challenges stem in part from the uncertainty pertaining to the customary content of some immunity regimes said to be in a 'state of flux', the divergent – and at times directly conflicting - approaches to immunity in different national and international jurisdictions, or the increasing intolerance towards impunity that has accompanied the advance of international criminal law and human rights law. Composed of thirty-four expertly written contributions, the present volume uniquely provides a comprehensive tour d'horizon of international immunity law, traversing a wealth of national and international practice.

  • WEATHERING THE STORM: LEGALITY AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SAUDI-LED MILITARY INTERVENTION IN YEMEN

  • Tom Ruys, Luca Ferro
  • Journal:
    International & Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 65 / Issue 1 / January 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    04 January 2016, pp. 61-98
    Print publication:
    January 2016

  • On 26 March 2015, a Saudi-led coalition launched ‘Operation Decisive Storm’ on the territory of the Republic of Yemen following a request by that country's beleaguered government. Although it received no prior fiat from the UN Security Council and took place amidst a civil war, the intervention met with approval from numerous States, with only few critical sounds. Closer scrutiny nonetheless reveals that the self-defence justification, which is primarily relied upon, does not provide a convincing legal basis for the operation. Moreover, the intervention is problematical from the perspective of the intervention by invitation doctrine and undeniably exposes its indeterminacy and proneness to abuse.