Search

Begin New Search Topic International Law Journal The Goettingen Journal of International Law

61. Defending the Emergence of the Superior Orders Defense in the Contemporary Context

Author:
Jessica Liang
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
The defense of superior orders is one of the most controversial defenses to be pleaded under criminal law. In effect, it condones ignorance of the law and allows a subordinate to escape criminal liability on a basis other than culpability. It may therefore come as a surprise that sixty years after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, the resort to superior orders has re-emerged as a complete defense for certain types of crimes. I argue that this defense is based on sound policy reasons of military necessity, and should be made available on the condition that the order is not 'manifestly illegal'. In contrast to blunt absolutist approaches, the manifest illegality doctrine presents the most workable test for distinguishing between the culpability of conduct committed by soldiers in circumstances of exigency. This 'middle-way' successfully balances the dichotomous ends of legality and military efficiency and should be the preferred test under international law.
Topic:
International Law
Political Geography:
Tokyo

62. The Post 9/11 Discourse Revisited - Self-Image on the International Legal Scietific Discipline

Author:
Ulf Linderfalk
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
A few years ago, the legality of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) was a topic much discussed in the international legal literature. This article approaches the problem from a new angle. Rather than investigating the relevant issue of legal substance – whether or not OEF was ever consistent with international law – the article focuses attention on the general scholarly performance in dealing with this issue. Scrutinizing the literature published immediately following upon the events of 11 September 2001, the author suggests that overall, the scholarly debate on the legality of OEF did not live up to the standards normally applied in serious legal analysis, and that hence, the debate should be characterized as poor science. The article presents this criticism in further detail. With said criticism as a basis, in a concluding part of this article, the author takes the investigation one step further. As he suggests, when scholars engaged in the post-9/11 discourse, there was something about the whole situation that greatly constrained them. They were obviously hesitant to conclude that in circumstances like those of 9/11, there would still not be any right of self-defense to exercise. So much did they hesitate that they thought the opposite conclusion worth the prize of far-reaching infringements of the most basic of scientific quality standards. Why this hesitation, the article asks. What force or forces are compelling international legal scientists? As the author suggests, this question bears directly on the particular self-image of the legal scientific discipline and the role it envisages for itself in the international community. He concludes the article by initiating a discussion on this very delicate issue specifically, introducing for this purpose a description of the international legal scientist as archetype.
Topic:
International Law

63. Humanitarian Action – A Scope for the Responsibility to Protect: Part II: Responsibility to Protect – A Legal Device Ready for Use?

Author:
Marie-José Domestici-Met
Publication Date:
12-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Throughout three issues of the Goettingen Journal of International Law we are trying and answering the same question: with the recognition of responsibility to protect, is humanitarian action at last guaranteed? Will this concept avoid some avoidable deaths and lack of rescue? Our first issue was devoted to the long quest for a legal regime in favor of humanitarian action effective delivery. After a step by step review of the many solutions which have been tried, the paper ended with the “discovery” of physical protection. After mentioning the Kosovo (and Serbia) air strikes and the 3rd millennium UN field missions, the paper ended with a worrying assessment: no device over the past 150 years has succeeded in guarantying neither assistance' provision nor protection. And we raised the issue of responsibility to protect (R to P) as a possible help to solution. Our today's paper goes down this way.
Topic:
International Law
Political Geography:
Kosovo and Serbia