上课上的让人情绪低落，reading永远都做不完，感觉连零头都碰不到。怎么办？抱怨显然是没什么用的。幸好只是开始一个月，我决定把所有的东西都开始重新补起来，每一门课的所有reading，都要补起来。还有时间没关系的。【花了44磅买了一个打印机😭等到要走的时候再转手卖掉吧……】
从现在开始，做一个有秩序有组织的学生。自由散漫留在性格中就好了。
CG, OUP 3rd, Chp 6 “use of force against terrorism: a new war for a new century?”
- SC Resolution 1368 (2001) implicitly affirmed the right of self-defence in response to terrorist attacks for the first time.
- NATO invoked art. 5 of its treaty in it history for the first time. – collective self-defence
- first time after 9/11 numerous states are willing to accept the legal right to use force against terrorist attack as a new development to interpretation of article 51 of the charter.
USA: previous practice: use art. 51 in response to past terrorist attacks and to deter future attack
- 1968 Beirut - alied with Israel, SCR 262(1968)
- 1985 Tunis - alied with Israel, unanimously condemned by SCR 574(1985)
- 1986 Libya - alied with UK, UK position with France and USA condemned but with different resaons to veto SCR - Pre-emptive self-defence [US reported to SC and invoked art. 51]
- 1993 Iraq: US reported to SC; SC: Russia & UK supported, China condemned.
- 1998 Sudan and Afghanistan: US reported to SC; against terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Condemnation: Arab states, Non-Alighed Movement, Pakistan and Russia.
Right to self-defence: US and Israel: reprisal, punitive rather than defensive
- necessary? already happended -> cannot be ongoing
- forciful reprisal are unlawful, prohibited by Declaration on Friendly Relations and SC R 188(1964)
Therefore, Israel and US tried to stretch interpretation of art. 51 of the Charter.
During 9/11
1368, 1373 recognise inherent right of self-defence
suspetion: preable, not operative part.
SC didn’t commonly put self-defence in preamble and refer to right to self-defence.
“armed attack” definition: changed?
- article 51 doesn’t specify it must be done by states.
- more problematic is reponse to such attack
Nicaragua: para 195 - only test for how to evaluate a non-state actor can be reponded by use of force
- “sent by or on behalf of a state” –> now changed into “tolerated - unable to control” (habouring)
- but only have “operation enduring freedom” as state practice
My question is:
Is the time span of self-defence under art. 51 very limited? as CG indicated in her book, “if force is sued in response to past attacks, it is not necessary self-defence as the harm has already done”. In so far as self-defence against terrorism, which is designed to deter and prevent future terrorist acts, it is difficult, if not impossible, to employ these central criteria of self-defence in the absence of detailed evidence about a specific threatened attack?
US, UK, Israel -> wider approach to future threat.
OEF
ISAF Res 1510(2003)
“The wider participation of states cannot automatically add legitimacy of such operation.”
OEF
- 1510 (2003): first time all ISAF cooperation with OEF
- 1659 (2006): close operation surgery
- 1707 (2007): extending authority for the first time
Bush doctrine: revised the requirement that a threat should be immienent.
- pre-emptive/anticipatory/preventive self-defence