Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The right of self-defence

Research

Associated organisational units

View graph of relations

The right of self-defence: against whom?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The right of self-defence: against whom? / Summers, James.
In: Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2005, p. 33-50.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Summers, J 2005, 'The right of self-defence: against whom?', Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 33-50.

APA

Summers, J. (2005). The right of self-defence: against whom? Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence, 8(1), 33-50.

Vancouver

Summers J. The right of self-defence: against whom? Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence. 2005;8(1):33-50.

Author

Summers, James. / The right of self-defence : against whom?. In: Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence. 2005 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 33-50.

Bibtex

@article{a60f8f916b854d44bbe0c747f2c69912,
title = "The right of self-defence: against whom?",
abstract = "The 11 September attacks and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan have raised profound questions about the scope of the right of self-defence in intemationallaw, in particular, to whom it applies. The United States has asserted that it has a right of self-defence against attacks by the AI-Qaeda terrorist organisation. However, this would seem to depart from what might be called the {"}traditional{"} interpretation of self-defence, which limits the right to between states. In this view, both the perpetrator and the victim of an {"}armed attack{"}, which gives rise to a right of self-defence, can only be a state. Yet this view itself has somewhat uncertain foundations, not being spelled out in the main provision on self-defence in the UN Charter and instead derived from a custom which shows some notably inconsistent practice. How, then, should the right of self-defence be considered? Is it reserved only for states, or can it also relate to other actors, such as terrorists, peoples and even individuals?",
author = "James Summers",
year = "2005",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "33--50",
journal = "Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence",
issn = "1174-4243",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The right of self-defence

T2 - against whom?

AU - Summers, James

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - The 11 September attacks and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan have raised profound questions about the scope of the right of self-defence in intemationallaw, in particular, to whom it applies. The United States has asserted that it has a right of self-defence against attacks by the AI-Qaeda terrorist organisation. However, this would seem to depart from what might be called the "traditional" interpretation of self-defence, which limits the right to between states. In this view, both the perpetrator and the victim of an "armed attack", which gives rise to a right of self-defence, can only be a state. Yet this view itself has somewhat uncertain foundations, not being spelled out in the main provision on self-defence in the UN Charter and instead derived from a custom which shows some notably inconsistent practice. How, then, should the right of self-defence be considered? Is it reserved only for states, or can it also relate to other actors, such as terrorists, peoples and even individuals?

AB - The 11 September attacks and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan have raised profound questions about the scope of the right of self-defence in intemationallaw, in particular, to whom it applies. The United States has asserted that it has a right of self-defence against attacks by the AI-Qaeda terrorist organisation. However, this would seem to depart from what might be called the "traditional" interpretation of self-defence, which limits the right to between states. In this view, both the perpetrator and the victim of an "armed attack", which gives rise to a right of self-defence, can only be a state. Yet this view itself has somewhat uncertain foundations, not being spelled out in the main provision on self-defence in the UN Charter and instead derived from a custom which shows some notably inconsistent practice. How, then, should the right of self-defence be considered? Is it reserved only for states, or can it also relate to other actors, such as terrorists, peoples and even individuals?

M3 - Journal article

VL - 8

SP - 33

EP - 50

JO - Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence

JF - Yearbook of New Zealand Jurisprudence

SN - 1174-4243

IS - 1

ER -