英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心 我要定制

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

美国essay范文-美国对恐怖分子的预期自我防御

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:4435

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。

美国essay范文-美国对恐怖分子的预期自我防御

介绍

在过去三十年中,美国纽约已经遭受各种各样的恐怖行为。最近的一个问题更重要的事件是911,这已经在国际法律领域引起了很多的问题,因为美国和它的盟友已经开始了“反恐战争”的活动。这个活动已经被美国认为是一个战争,这个包括军事力量,同时英国政府也表示这是政治和经济的措施。美国已经证明合理的反恐战争行为是出于自卫,这一论点引发了许多有争议的观点关于自卫的权利。这里有许多的争议关于基于自我防御的权利来使用武力,反对的观点依赖于尼加拉瓜事件和《联合国宪章》第51条的规定,不被证明在反恐战争中使用军事力量是正当的,因为它可能违反日内瓦公约关于和平和国家的主权,而支持的观点是为了行使先行自卫的权利,这依赖于卡洛琳事件和国际法律的缺点,从而试图证明在反恐战争中使用武力是正当的。然而,本文将试图把反对和支持的争论结合,来找出反恐战争的合法性,通过检查双方的理由—比如卡罗琳和尼加拉瓜事件.

《联合国宪章》第五十一条陈述:

目前的宪章中没有损害个人固有的权利或者集体的正当防卫,如果发生武装攻击反对联合国的成员,直到安理会采取必要的措施来维持国际和平与安全。

The Anticipatory Self Defence Of The Usa Against Terrorists 

介绍-Introduction

The United States of America has suffered various terrorist actions over the last three decades [1] . A more recent issue and more important event is the September 11 attack or (9/11), which has raised many issues in the area of international law because the U.S.A and its allies have started their campaign in the 'War on Terror'. This campaign has been considered by the US as a case of war, which includes military force and, as the UK government has also stated, political and financial measures. [2] The U.S.A has justified the war on terror as being in self-defense, a contention which has raised many controversial points about the right of self-defense. There are many arguments about the use of force based upon the right of self- defense; the con argument relies on the Nicaragua case [3] and Article 51 of the UN Charter [4] , and does not justify the use of force in the war on terror because that it may violate the Geneva Conventions regarding the peace and the sovereignty of states [5] . Whereas the pro argument for exercising the right of anticipatory self-defense relies on the Caroline case [6] and the weakness of the international law, and thereby attempts to justify the use of force in the war on terror. However, this paper will attempt to find the connection between the pro and con arguments to figure out the legality of the war on terror by examining the two sides' justifications - such as the Caroline and Nicaragua Cases.SIEMENS2010-08-31T07:31:00

Insert Citation into footnote for all cases including page number if necessary if you are quoting from it

Article 51 of the UN Charter states that:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. [7] 

According to Article 51, the state under attack has the right to defend its territory from that attack [8] . In actual fact, the defending state is limited by some conditions such as the occurrence of the armed attack, and in reporting to the UN Security Council. [9] First, the most controversial point is defining an 'armed attack' because Article 51 allows force only in the event of an armed attack from another state. [10] Therefore, the use of force in self- defense is prohibited if there is no real attack. Moreover, the argument of anticipatory self defense, which is used as the justification for the war on terror is, according to Article 51, illegal. [11] Furthermore, the anticipatory self-defense in the Nicaragua case requires the state defend its territory论文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。

共 1/3 页首页上一页123下一页尾页

相关文章

    英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非