{"title":"美国和英国在也门的军事打击与诉诸战争权","authors":"Christian Henderson","doi":"10.1017/s0020589324000216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the <jats:italic>jus ad bellum—</jats:italic>is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.","PeriodicalId":47350,"journal":{"name":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"US AND UK MILITARY STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THE JUS AD BELLUM\",\"authors\":\"Christian Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0020589324000216\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the <jats:italic>jus ad bellum—</jats:italic>is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International & Comparative Law Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589324000216\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International & Comparative Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589324000216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
US AND UK MILITARY STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THE JUS AD BELLUM
The United States and United Kingdom have carried out a series of strikes upon Yemeni territory since January 2024. The acting States have justified these on the basis of the right of self-defence in response to the series of attacks that have been perpetrated by the Houthi group in Yemen against various commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea. On the face of it this was a relatively straightforward justification. Yet, when subjected to analysis it becomes evident that not only is the justification itself not clear, but that the law governing the actions—the jus ad bellum—is not sufficiently settled to provide clear parameters by which to assess the legality of the strikes. Furthermore, the strikes themselves, and the purposes for which they were undertaken, may have set a precedent with unforeseeable consequences.
期刊介绍：
The International & Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) publishes papers on public and private international law, comparative law, human rights and European law, and is one of the world''s leading journals covering all these areas. Since it was founded in 1952 the ICLQ has built a reputation for publishing innovative and original articles within the various fields, and also spanning them, exploring the connections between the subject areas. It offers both academics and practitioners wide topical coverage, without compromising rigorous editorial standards. The ICLQ attracts scholarship of the highest standard from around the world, which contributes to the maintenance of its truly international frame of reference. The ''Shorter Articles and Notes'' section enables the discussion of contemporary legal issues and ''Book Reviews'' highlight the most important new publications in these various fields. The ICLQ is the journal of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and is published by Cambridge University Press.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
