The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence

Research output: Contributions to collected editions/worksChapterpeer-review

Standard

The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence. / Tams, Christian J.
Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges. ed. / Larissa van den Herik; Nico Schrijver. Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 373-422.

Research output: Contributions to collected editions/worksChapterpeer-review

Harvard

Tams, CJ 2011, The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence. in L van den Herik & N Schrijver (eds), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges. Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-422. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014

APA

Tams, C. J. (2011). The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence. In L. van den Herik, & N. Schrijver (Eds.), Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges (pp. 373-422). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014

Vancouver

Tams CJ. The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence. In van den Herik L, Schrijver N, editors, Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order: Meeting the Challenges. Cambridge University Press. 2011. p. 373-422 doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014

Bibtex

@inbook{c5d3322e2f3043fba1028568bb42ab90,
title = "The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence",
abstract = "Introduction. Necessity and proportionality are broad principles that apply to a variety of different settings under international law, including the law of self-defence. This seems undisputed today, even though Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) does not mention {\textquoteleft}proportionality/proportionate{\textquoteright} at all, and {\textquoteleft}necessity/necessary{\textquoteright} only in relation to the Security Council. Yet Article 51 UN Charter does not regulate the right to self-defence comprehensively; in order for it to be applicable, {\textquoteleft}external factors{\textquoteright} need to be taken into account. That necessity and proportionality are two such factors is generally agreed. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the ICJ {\textquoteleft}[t]he submission of the exercise of the right of self-defence to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary international law{\textquoteright}. In this respect, the Court was surely correct to note that {\textquoteleft}[t]he conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence are well settled{\textquoteright}. {\textquoteleft}Ritual incantations{\textquoteright} of necessity and proportionality, however, do not solve problems of application. These appear at two levels. Predictably, when measuring specific acts of self-defence against the yardsticks of necessity and proportionality, lawyers are likely to reach different results. In so far as this reflects different assessments of the facts, this may be in the nature of things. There is however a second problem: necessity and proportionality are {\textquoteleft}consistently referred to … but rarely, if ever, analysed in relation to the Charter scheme on self-defence{\textquoteright}. As a consequence, there is much uncertainty about the precise content of the {\textquoteleft}necessity test{\textquoteright} and the {\textquoteleft}proportionality equation{\textquoteright}, and about their interrelation.",
keywords = "Law",
author = "Tams, {Christian J.}",
year = "2011",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781107025387",
pages = "373--422",
editor = "{van den Herik}, {Larissa } and Nico Schrijver",
booktitle = "Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - The necessity and proportionality of anti-terrorist self-defence

AU - Tams, Christian J.

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Introduction. Necessity and proportionality are broad principles that apply to a variety of different settings under international law, including the law of self-defence. This seems undisputed today, even though Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) does not mention ‘proportionality/proportionate’ at all, and ‘necessity/necessary’ only in relation to the Security Council. Yet Article 51 UN Charter does not regulate the right to self-defence comprehensively; in order for it to be applicable, ‘external factors’ need to be taken into account. That necessity and proportionality are two such factors is generally agreed. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the ICJ ‘[t]he submission of the exercise of the right of self-defence to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary international law’. In this respect, the Court was surely correct to note that ‘[t]he conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence are well settled’. ‘Ritual incantations’ of necessity and proportionality, however, do not solve problems of application. These appear at two levels. Predictably, when measuring specific acts of self-defence against the yardsticks of necessity and proportionality, lawyers are likely to reach different results. In so far as this reflects different assessments of the facts, this may be in the nature of things. There is however a second problem: necessity and proportionality are ‘consistently referred to … but rarely, if ever, analysed in relation to the Charter scheme on self-defence’. As a consequence, there is much uncertainty about the precise content of the ‘necessity test’ and the ‘proportionality equation’, and about their interrelation.

AB - Introduction. Necessity and proportionality are broad principles that apply to a variety of different settings under international law, including the law of self-defence. This seems undisputed today, even though Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) does not mention ‘proportionality/proportionate’ at all, and ‘necessity/necessary’ only in relation to the Security Council. Yet Article 51 UN Charter does not regulate the right to self-defence comprehensively; in order for it to be applicable, ‘external factors’ need to be taken into account. That necessity and proportionality are two such factors is generally agreed. Pursuant to the jurisprudence of the ICJ ‘[t]he submission of the exercise of the right of self-defence to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary international law’. In this respect, the Court was surely correct to note that ‘[t]he conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence are well settled’. ‘Ritual incantations’ of necessity and proportionality, however, do not solve problems of application. These appear at two levels. Predictably, when measuring specific acts of self-defence against the yardsticks of necessity and proportionality, lawyers are likely to reach different results. In so far as this reflects different assessments of the facts, this may be in the nature of things. There is however a second problem: necessity and proportionality are ‘consistently referred to … but rarely, if ever, analysed in relation to the Charter scheme on self-defence’. As a consequence, there is much uncertainty about the precise content of the ‘necessity test’ and the ‘proportionality equation’, and about their interrelation.

KW - Law

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924161500&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/3962b81d-9a0e-3fed-b072-95a2ef66dba9/

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014

DO - 10.1017/CBO9781139178907.014

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84924161500

SN - 9781107025387

SP - 373

EP - 422

BT - Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order

A2 - van den Herik, Larissa

A2 - Schrijver, Nico

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -

Recently viewed

Researchers

  1. Steve Janner

Publications

  1. System change at National government level
  2. Shrub management is the principal driver of differing population sizes between native and invasive populations of Rosa rubiginosa L
  3. Model-based potential analysis of the distribution logistics:
  4. Disentangling the Digitality of Startups from an Enterprise Architecture Perspective
  5. Regierung
  6. Effect of filler materials on the tensile properties and fracture toughness of laser beam welded AA2198 joints under different ageing conditions
  7. Moral sensitivity in business
  8. Changing the Rules
  9. Complementary biomass strategy
  10. Zur ‚Privatisierung‘ von gewaltsamem Protest
  11. "Dit Is Berlin"
  12. Numerical study of rolling process on the plastic strain distribution in wire + arc additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V
  13. Autonomie der Migration
  14. Dynamics of Supply Chains Under Mixed Production Strategies
  15. Den Untergang beschreiben
  16. Machen Urlaubsreisen glücklich?
  17. Socio-technical change linking expectations and representations
  18. Projektmentoring mit Schülerinnen-Roboterbau
  19. When back of pack meets front of pack
  20. Handball in Angriff nehmen
  21. Comparison of Friction Extrusion Processing from Bulk and Chips of Aluminum-Copper Alloys
  22. Teaching learning strategies with a pedagogical agent
  23. Article 13
  24. Mapping giant honey bee nests in Palawan, Philippines through a transdisciplinary approach
  25. Work values as predictors of entrepreneurial career intentions:
  26. Engaging with Three Predicaments of Transnational Migration Research in the Postcolonial Condition
  27. Temporary Organizations
  28. Are all politicians the same? Reproduction and change of chief executive career patterns in democratic regimes
  29. Rebound-Effekte
  30. The productivity effect of temporary agency work