美国essay范文-美国对恐怖分子的预期自我防御 [3]
论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:短文 essay登出时间:2015-11-11编辑:dou1901点击率:4470
论文字数:2062论文编号:org201511062047519140语种:英语 English地区:美国价格:免费论文
关键词:The Anticipatory Self Defence恐怖行为国际法
摘要:美国遭受了各种各样的恐怖时间,采取了军事力量的反恐战争,这引起了多方面的争论,有赞同的也有反对的,本文是将赞成与反对联系起来来找出反恐战争的合法性。
ged to the British government [30] , whereas the terrorists' organization was located in Afghanistan. Finally, the U.S.A and Canada are neighbors, also the U.S.A has its predecessor in the revolution inon the British government, and that posed an imminent threat and danger against the Britain, whereas the Afghanistan territory is far away from the U.S.A, and also in comparison the Afghani forces areis weaker than the American forces. Furthermore, in the Nicaragua case the International Court of Justice has found the U.S.A had violated the international treaties coveringof customary international law by violatinginterfered in Nicaraguan territory, and it refused the U.S.A's justification of self defense [31] .
In the review of these arguments, it is difficult to say that the anticipatory self defense in the war against terrorism is legal or not. On one hand, the anticipatory self defense is conditioned covered in Article 51 by the existence of the armed attack, and the permission of the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the concept of sovereignty, which was born in the Ttreaty of Westphalia, had prohibitsed the intervention of any state into another state's internal affairs. [32] On other hand, the terrorism is an international problem , so the states should co-operate to stop it. Iindeed, the use of force in anticipatory self defense in accordance with Article 51 and the international treaties is illegal [33] . Also , Furthermore, the state sovereignty was conditionaled onby the success of the state defined asto providinge a good treatment to itstheir citizens because the Charter of United Nations in Article 2 has urges themd to promote Democracy and to protect human rights. [34]
结论-Conclusion
Knowing that tThe similarity between the terrorists and the Caroline's rebels and the conditions of the concept of state sovereignty can justify the anticipatory self- defense, whereas the differences between the terrorists and Caroline's rebels and the original concept of sovereignty can not justify the anticipatory self- defense. Therefore, the use of force in anticipatory self defense is illegal accordance with Article 51 and the customary international law. However, tThe use of force in anticipatory self defense logically is legal in some cases [35] .
Bibiliography
Duffy, Helen, the 'War on Terror' and the fFramework of Iinternational Llaw (Cambridge University Press, 4th ed, 2007).
Hamid, Adul gGhafur, ' The Llegality of aAnticipatory sSelf-defense in the 21st cCentury wWorld oOrder: A Re-appraisal' [2007] Netherlands International Review 441.
International Council On Human Rights policy, Human Rights after September (January 2002)
Ulfsten, Geir, 'Terrorism and the use of force' (2003), 34(2) Security Dialogue 153
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。