通过国际法推进“反恐战争”:美国和英国如何复活布什关于使用预防性军事力量打击恐怖主义的学说*

Victor Kattan
{"title":"通过国际法推进“反恐战争”:美国和英国如何复活布什关于使用预防性军事力量打击恐怖主义的学说*","authors":"Victor Kattan","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article revisits the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012. As disclosed in documents revealed by WikiLeaks, the principles were the product of intergovernmental discussions led by the United States to secure greater understanding of the jus ad bellum that had their origins in the controversial ‘Bush doctrine’ published in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002. In 2017, the UK Attorney General announced that the UK ‘follows and endorses’ Principle 8 of ‘The Bethlehem Principles’, as did Australia’s Attorney General. Principle 8 reflects an expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defence by providing a new standard of imminence to enable preventive military strikes against threats outside traditional conflict zones.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"144 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Furthering the ‘war on terrorism’ through international law: how the United States and the United Kingdom resurrected the Bush doctrine on using preventive military force to combat terrorism*\",\"authors\":\"Victor Kattan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article revisits the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012. As disclosed in documents revealed by WikiLeaks, the principles were the product of intergovernmental discussions led by the United States to secure greater understanding of the jus ad bellum that had their origins in the controversial ‘Bush doctrine’ published in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002. In 2017, the UK Attorney General announced that the UK ‘follows and endorses’ Principle 8 of ‘The Bethlehem Principles’, as did Australia’s Attorney General. Principle 8 reflects an expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defence by providing a new standard of imminence to enable preventive military strikes against threats outside traditional conflict zones.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"144 - 97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2017.1376929","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: 7

摘要

本文回顾了丹尼尔·伯利恒爵士在2012年《美国国际法杂志》上发表的《国家对非国家行为者迫在眉睫或实际的武装攻击的自卫权范围相关原则》。根据维基解密披露的文件,这些原则是由美国领导的政府间讨论的产物,目的是为了更好地理解战争法,而战争法起源于2002年发表在《美国国家安全战略》上的有争议的“布什主义”。2017年,英国司法部长宣布,英国“遵循并支持”“伯利恒原则”的第8项原则,澳大利亚司法部长也是如此。原则8反映了预期自卫权利的扩大,提供了一种新的紧急标准,以便能够对传统冲突地区以外的威胁进行预防性军事打击。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Furthering the ‘war on terrorism’ through international law: how the United States and the United Kingdom resurrected the Bush doctrine on using preventive military force to combat terrorism*
ABSTRACT This article revisits the Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors published by Sir Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012. As disclosed in documents revealed by WikiLeaks, the principles were the product of intergovernmental discussions led by the United States to secure greater understanding of the jus ad bellum that had their origins in the controversial ‘Bush doctrine’ published in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America in 2002. In 2017, the UK Attorney General announced that the UK ‘follows and endorses’ Principle 8 of ‘The Bethlehem Principles’, as did Australia’s Attorney General. Principle 8 reflects an expansion of the right of anticipatory self-defence by providing a new standard of imminence to enable preventive military strikes against threats outside traditional conflict zones.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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