Introduction to issue 10(1)

T. Ruys
{"title":"Introduction to issue 10(1)","authors":"T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2023.2202448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to this lustrum edition of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, now in its tenth year of publication.More than one year after the launchof Russia’s ‘specialmilitary operation’ in February 2022,we continue to put the spotlight on a range of jus ad bellum issues, both of a thematic nature as well as linked to specific armed confrontations, such as that mentioned above. Our issue opens with an editorial by co-editor-in-chief James Green, who observes how many western states have provided significant amounts of weapons as well as logistical aid toUkraine since early 2022. Green specifically poses the question whether such assistance qualifies as a ‘use of force’ in the sense of Article 2(4) UN Charter (on the assumption that, if this were to be the case, it would constitute a lawful exercise of collective self-defence). While some scholars have answered the question in the affirmative, and a few supporting states have expressly invoked the doctrine of self-defence, Green ultimately remains sceptical that the mere provision of weapons or logistical support triggers the application of the prohibition on the use of force. Next, Işıl Aral examines how international law scholars construct their arguments when they argue for the emergence of a new customary norm. In particular, the author examines democratic governance discourses to analyse the way in which scholars resort to the involvement of the Security Council as a narrative technique that provides persuasiveness to their argument. Aral does so by examining how scholars have reiterated the same interpretation regarding the Security Council’s involvement in the post-election crises in Haiti, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire, and by construing these precedents as forming part of a cumulative practice. In turn, Chloe Goldthorpe examines ongoing debates over the ‘armed attack’ requirement under Article 51 of the UN Charter from a ‘TWAIL’ perspective. Put differently, Goldthorpe uses insights from ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ to analyse state-issued statements on the right of self-defence, contending that such conclusions result from academic approaches that not only over-privilege the limited practice of a few states, but also do not sufficiently consider inherent bias within the construction","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"10 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2023.2202448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Welcome to this lustrum edition of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, now in its tenth year of publication.More than one year after the launchof Russia’s ‘specialmilitary operation’ in February 2022,we continue to put the spotlight on a range of jus ad bellum issues, both of a thematic nature as well as linked to specific armed confrontations, such as that mentioned above. Our issue opens with an editorial by co-editor-in-chief James Green, who observes how many western states have provided significant amounts of weapons as well as logistical aid toUkraine since early 2022. Green specifically poses the question whether such assistance qualifies as a ‘use of force’ in the sense of Article 2(4) UN Charter (on the assumption that, if this were to be the case, it would constitute a lawful exercise of collective self-defence). While some scholars have answered the question in the affirmative, and a few supporting states have expressly invoked the doctrine of self-defence, Green ultimately remains sceptical that the mere provision of weapons or logistical support triggers the application of the prohibition on the use of force. Next, Işıl Aral examines how international law scholars construct their arguments when they argue for the emergence of a new customary norm. In particular, the author examines democratic governance discourses to analyse the way in which scholars resort to the involvement of the Security Council as a narrative technique that provides persuasiveness to their argument. Aral does so by examining how scholars have reiterated the same interpretation regarding the Security Council’s involvement in the post-election crises in Haiti, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire, and by construing these precedents as forming part of a cumulative practice. In turn, Chloe Goldthorpe examines ongoing debates over the ‘armed attack’ requirement under Article 51 of the UN Charter from a ‘TWAIL’ perspective. Put differently, Goldthorpe uses insights from ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ to analyse state-issued statements on the right of self-defence, contending that such conclusions result from academic approaches that not only over-privilege the limited practice of a few states, but also do not sufficiently consider inherent bias within the construction
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第10期导言(1)
欢迎阅读本期《使用武力和国际法问题杂志》的精刊,这是它出版的第10个年头。在俄罗斯于2022年2月发起“特殊军事行动”一年多之后,我们继续关注一系列“战争法”问题,这些问题既有主题性质,也与上述具体的武装对抗有关。我们的问题以联合主编詹姆斯·格林的一篇社论开始,他观察到自2022年初以来,有多少西方国家向乌克兰提供了大量武器和后勤援助。Green特别提出了这样一个问题:根据《联合国宪章》第2(4)条的规定,这种援助是否符合“使用武力”的条件(假设如果是这样的话,它将构成集体自卫的合法行使)。虽然一些学者对这个问题的回答是肯定的,一些支持的国家也明确援引了自卫的原则,但格林最终仍对仅仅提供武器或后勤支持就会引发禁止使用武力的适用持怀疑态度。接下来,Işıl Aral考察了国际法学者在支持新习惯规范的出现时是如何构建他们的论点的。作者特别研究了民主治理的话语,以分析学者们如何利用安全理事会的参与作为一种叙述技巧,为他们的论点提供说服力。为此,阿拉尔考察了学者们是如何对安理会介入海地、塞拉利昂和科特迪瓦选举后的危机重申同样的解释,并将这些先例解释为累积实践的一部分。Chloe Goldthorpe从“TWAIL”的角度审视了关于联合国宪章第51条“武装攻击”要求的持续辩论。换句话说,戈德索普利用《第三世界的国际法研究方法》中的见解来分析国家发表的关于自卫权的声明,他认为,这种结论是由学术方法得出的,这种方法不仅对少数国家的有限实践给予了过度的特权,而且没有充分考虑到构建中的固有偏见
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Quashing protests abroad: The CSTO’s intervention in Kazakhstan Intervention by invitation and the scope of state consent Anticipatory consent to military intervention: analysis in the wake of the coup d’état in Niger in 2023 The war in Ukraine and legal limitations on Russian vetoes Digest of state practice: 1 January – 30 June 2023
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1