Drawing from scholarship across law, history, politics and philosophy, Self-Defence in International and Criminal Law provides a broad and interdisciplinary approach to the doctrine of self-defence in both domestic criminal and international law. It focuses on the requirement of imminence, which deals with the question of when individuals or States may legitimately resort to defensive force against a serious danger or harm. In both national and international law the imminence requirement, if strictly applied, renders any defensive measure taken in anticipation of a would-be attack illegal. Recently, however, attempts have been made to relax the temporal requirement of the self-defence doctrine (imminence) with a view to allowing individuals or States to employ deadly force to arrest an anticipated threat when they ‘believe’ that using ‘pre-emptive’ lethal force would be the only way to thwart an expected harm. In domestic criminal law, it has been argued that it is necessary to relax the rule of imminence in domestic violence cases where women employ lethal force against their abusive partners when there is no imminent threat to justify defensive force. At the international level, while there has long been controversy as to the justifiability of pre-emptive force in non-confrontational settings, following the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration’s ‘war on terror’ policy radically shifted the focus from the notion of anticipation to that of prevention, making it clear that, if necessary, it would invoke unilateral force against emerging threats before they are fully formed. The book surveys the roots, role, rationale, and objectives of self-defence and questions whether the requirement of imminence should be removed from the traditional contours of the self-defence doctrine in national and international law.

Self-defense and the right to go to war. Originally published: New York: Praeger, [1958]. xv, 294 pp. Bowett observes that the use or threat of force by any state can be a delict, an approved sanction, or a measure taken in self-defense. He examines the evolution of self-defense doctrine in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, with the assumption of the existence of a state's unlimited 'right' to go to war. He then attempts to outline the limited and provisional effects of this right under the U.N. Charter. This book was written after Bowett's term as a United Nations legal officer from 1957-1959. "Throughout the work there is a refusal to dogmatize or to state in absolute terms any aspect of the 'privilege' of self-defence in its present context. (...) [Bowett] is to be congratulated on producing a timely and scholarly survey of one of the most fundamental, and often abused, sovereign rights known to international law." --K.R. Simmonds, British Year Book of International Law 34 (1958) 432. SIR DEREK WILLIAM BOWETT [1927-2009], an international lawyer, was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1969-1982 and Whewell Professor of International Law, Cambridge, from 1981-1991. He was awarded a CBE in 1983 and a knighthood in 1998. He is the author of The Law of International Institutions (1963), United Nations Forces: A Legal Study (1964), The Law of the Sea (1967), The Search for Peace (1972) and The International Court of Justice (1996).

The book provides a broad and interdisciplinary approach to the doctrine of self-defence in both domestic criminal and international law. In particular it focuses on the requirement of imminence, which deals with the question of when individuals or States may legitimately resort to defensive force against a serious danger or harm. Drawing from scholarship across law, history, politics and philosophy, this book explores the permissibility of employing preventive force under the law of individual and national self-defence. The book illustrates how the law of international self-defence, and in particular the requirement of imminence, has been subjected to controversy in parallel with its domestic counterpart. In both disciplines the debate over imminence is centred on similar concerns, issues and tensions despite the fact the arguments put forward are designed to address different scenarios. The book surveys the roots, role, rationale, and objectives of self-defence and questions whether the requirement of imminence should be removed from the traditional contours of the self-defence doctrine in national and international law.

The legal rules governing the use of force between States are one of the most fundamental, and the most controversial, aspects of international law. An essential part of this subject is the question of when, and to what extent, a State may lawfully use force against another in self-defence. However, the parameters of this inherent right remain obscure, despite the best efforts of scholars and, notably, the International Court of Justice. This book examines the burgeoning relationship between the ICJ and the right of self-defence. Since 2003 there have been three major decisions of the ICJ that have dealt directly with the law governing self-defence actions, in contrast to only two such cases in the preceding fifty years. This, then, is an opportune moment to reconsider the jurisprudence of the Court on this issue. This book is the first of its kind to comprehensively draw together and then assess the merits of this jurisprudence. It argues that the contribution of the ICJ has been confused and unhelpful, and compounds inadequacies in existing customary international law. The ICJ's fundamental conception of a primary criterion of 'armed attack' as constituting a qualitatively grave use of force is brought into question. The book then goes on to examine the underlying causes of the problems that have emerged in the jurisprudence on this crucial issue. Winner of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009 Dr Green's monograph demonstrates a thorough understanding of the law of self-defence, coupled with an informed and evaluative discussion of the role and function of the International Court. It is an impressive analysis of the International Court of Justice's jurisprudence on self-defence. Professor Iain Scobbie, Judge of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009, Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, London James Green's "The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law" usefully draws together the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice on the international law governing self-defence. The work could not be more timely in light of both contemporary State practice and the Court's recent controversial judgements on the topic. Of particular note is his analysis of the very complex, and as yet unsettled, notion of "armed attack." Professor Michael Schmitt, Chairman of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize Committee, Chair of Public International Law, Durham University Winner of the University of Reading Faculty of Social Sciences outputs prize for the best research output in 2010.

Yoram Dinstein's influential textbook is an indispensable guide to the legal issues of war and peace, armed attack, self-defence and enforcement measures taken under the aegis of the Security Council. This fifth edition incorporates recent treaties such as the Kampala amendments of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, new case law from the International Court of Justice and other tribunals, and contemporary doctrinal debates. Several new supplementary sections are also included, which take into account recent conflicts around the world, and consideration is given to new resolutions of the Security Council. With many segments having been rewritten to reflect recent State practice, this book remains a wide-ranging and highly readable introduction to the legal issues surrounding war and self-defence.

While an abundance of literature covers the right of states to defend themselves against external aggression, this is the first book dedicated to the right to personal self-defense in international law. Dr. Hessbruegge sets out in careful detail the strict requirements that human rights impose on defensive force by law enforcement authorities, especially police killings in self-defense. The book also discusses the exceptional application of the right to personal self-defense in military-led operations, notably to contain violent civilians who do not directly participate in hostilities. The author establishes that international law gives individuals the right to forcibly resist human rights violations that pose a serious risk of significant and irreparable harm. At the same time, he calls into question prevailing state practice, which fails to recognize any collective right to organized armed resistance even when it constitutes the last resort to defend against genocide or other mass atrocities.

The Second Edition of "Defenses in Contemporary International Criminal Law" ventures farther into this uneasy territory than any previous work, offering a meticulous analysis of the case law in the post World War II Military Tribunals and the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, with particular attention to the defenses developed, their rationales, and their origins in various municipal systems. It analyzes the defense provisions in the charters and statutes underlying these tribunals and the new International Criminal Court, while examining the first judgment in this field rendered by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, on June 20, 2007. The conceptual reach of this work includes not only the defenses recognized in the field's jurisprudence and scholarship (superior orders, duress, self-defense, insanity, necessity, mistake of law and fact, immunity of States), but also presents a strong case for the incorporation of genetic and neurobiological data into the functioning of certain defenses. Procedural mechanisms to invoke these defenses are also addressed.