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
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。