|
crazyml -> RE: The current middle eastern crisis is Israels fault... (7/25/2014 5:27:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
Is it possible to be more ignorant about international law.
When acting in self defence your actions have to be proportional.
Nope. No where in the UN charter or the relevant Geneva Conventions is there such a requirement. If a nation is attacked it can unleash its full fury on the attacker.
It is an absolutely established legal principle that self defence must be proportional. You're wrong on this. This is international law, created by precedent between the USA and the British (see the Caroline case)
If it is not proportional, it ceases to be self-defence and becomes "offence".
You are mistaken. The Caroline test is about preemptive self defense. IOW attacking first when you are about to be attacked. Then the attack must be proportional to the threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_test
It has absolutely no bearing if a state is actually attacked. In that case no holds barred.
Nope, you're the mistaken one. The Caroline test asserts two notions, the first is necessity the second proportionality.
Google more.
Start with http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br-1842d.asp
Pay attention to...
" the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. It must be strewn that admonition or remonstrance to the persons on board the "Caroline" was impracticable, or would have been unavailing; it must be strewn that daylight could not be waited for; that there could be no attempt at discrimination, between the innocent and the guilty; that it would not have been enough to seize and detain the vessel; but that there was a necessity, present and inevitable, for attacking her, in the darkness of the night, while moored to the shore, and while unarmed men were asleep on board, killing some, and wounding others, and then drawing her into the current, above the cataract, setting her on fire, and, careless to know whether there might not be in her the innocent with the guilty, or the living with the dead, committing her to a fate, which fills the imagination with horror. A necessity for an this, the Government of the United States cannot believe to have existed."
|
|
|
|
