CRIME OF AGGRESSION AND PROBLEMS IN STATE RIGHT OF ANTICIPATORY SELF-DEFENSE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article aims to critically examine the issue of state actions that may constitute the crime of aggression, particularly when states invoke the right of anticipatory self-defense to avoid liability for such crimes. By invoking anticipatory self-defense, states claim a privilege under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognizes the "inherent right of self-defense," a concept rooted in the Caroline affair case.
Anticipatory self-defense is distinct from general self-defense as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. While general self-defense allows states to unilaterally defend themselves against an aggressor state in response to an armed attack, anticipatory self-defense involves a state using military force preemptively against an imminent threat posed by an aggressor state before any actual attack or aggression has occurred. This form of self-defense is employed to neutralize or eliminate a potential threat that is considered imminent and dangerous, with the goal of preempting an attack by the aggressor state.
Such actions, characterized as acts of aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute, pose a complex legal issue as states invoke anticipatory self-defense to circumvent accountability. This article seeks to elucidate the theoretical foundations and practical implications of states' actions in this context, assessing whether they align with established principles of international law.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
บทความหรือข้อความคิดเห็นใด ๆ ที่ปรากฏในวารสารบัณฑิตศึกษานิติศาสตร์เป็นวรรณกรรมของผู้เขียนโดยเฉพาะคณะนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ และบรรณาธิการไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย
References
บรรณานุกรม
หนังสือและบทความในหนังสือ
ภาษาต่างประเทศ
Abram Chates, The legal case for U.S. Action on Cuba (Dep’T State Bull).
Abram Chates, Law and the Quarantine of Cuba (1963).
Abraham D. Sofaer, European Journal of International law (Oxford University press 2003).
Brunson MacChesney, Some Comments on the “Quarantine” of Cuba (1963)
Bruno Simma ed., The Charter Of The United Nations: A commentary (Oxford University press 1994).
Charles Pierson, Preemptive Self-Defense in an Age of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Operation Iraqi Freedom (Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 2004).
Craig Forcese, Destroying the Caroline: The Frontier Raid That Reshaped the Right to War (Irwin Law 2018)Francois Heisbourg, A Work in Progress: The Bush Doctrine and its Consequences (2003).
Daniel C. Maguire, The Horrors We Bless: Rethinking the Just-War Legacy (Fortress press 2007).
Daniel Webster Bowett, Self-Defense in international Law (Manchester Univ.press 1959).
D. Murphy, The Doctrine of Premptive Self-Defense (Villanova University 2005).
Eugene v. Rostow, Until What? Enforcement Action or Collective Self-Defense? (Cambridge University Press 1991).
John Langan, The element of St. Augustine’s Just war Theory (Blackwell Publishing Ltd 1984).
John kleiderer, Paula Minaert and Mark Mossa, Just war, lasting peace : what Christian Traditions can teach Us (ThriftBooks-Atlanta 2006).
L.P. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a party (Washington 1989).
Myres S. McDougal, The Soveit-Cuban Quarantine and Self-Defense (1963).
Patrick Kelly, ‘Preemptive Self-defense, Customary international Law, and the Congolese war’ (pdf, E-International Relations 2016).
Rex J. Zedalis, Prelininary Thoughts on some Unresolved Questions involving the Law of Anticipatory Self-Defense (J. INT’L 1998).
Ruth Wedgwood, The Enforcement of Security Council Resolution 687 : The Threat of Force against Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (Cambridge University Press 1998).
บทความวารสาร
ภาษาต่างประเทศ
Claude B. Mickelwait, ‘McDougal & Feliciano : Law And Minimum World Public Order’ (1961) 4 Michigan Law Review, 601.
Reisman, W. Michael, Andrea Armstrong, ‘The past and Future Claim of Preemptive Self-Defense’ (2006) 100 American journal of international law 525, 537.
บทความหนังสือพิมพ์
ภาษาต่างประเทศ
President John F. Kennedy, Radio and Television Report to the American People on the Soviet Arms Buildup in Cuba, 485 PUB. PAPERS 806, 807 (Oct 22, 1962).
วิทยานิพนธ์
ภาษาไทย
เต็มศิริ เอื้อวิเศษวัฒนา, ‘หลักความได้สัดส่วนในกฎหมายระหว่างประเทศในกรณีการใช้กำลังทางทหาร’ (วิทยานิพนธ์ นิติศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ 2556).
สื่ออิเล็กทรอนิกส์
ภาษาต่างประเทศ
--‘Rome statue of the International Criminal Court’ International Criminal Court, <https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf> สืบค้นเมื่อ 5 เมษายน 2566
Adebayo Ola Afolaranmi, ‘Just War Theory’ (Academia) <https://www.academia.edu/35909777/Just_ war_pdf> สืบค้นเมื่อ 10 เมษายน 2566.
‘British-American Diplomacy: The Caroline Case’, (Yale Law School LILLIAN GOLDMAN Law Library) <https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br1842d.
asp?fbclid=IwAR23VN6QOs6JHI0eQP8VZVe5beeqrpEOBEgp9XiNc6IZewkfNRy6lXg1uqc> สืบค้นเมื่อ 3 มีนาคม 2567.
Mr.Fox to Mr. Forsyrth. February 6.1838, The American Presidency Project,
presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-4058?fbclid=IwAR1TN_vT-YHYnRf84CZHuUOcaz4gz8yQjkr9g0YY_nSiXDq12gAUJP3mMCQ> สืบค้นเมื่อ 3 มีนาคม 2567.
Nguyen Van Sang, ‘The Caroline affair and the diplomatic crisis between Great Britain and the United States 1837-1841’ (pdf.) 75. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331876937_The_ Caroline_Affair_and_the_Diplomatic_Crisis_between_Great_Britain_and_the_United_States_1837-1841> สืบค้นเมื่อ 20 มีนาคม 2567.
UNGA, The charter and judgment of the Nurnberg Tribunal History and analysis (1949) Doc A/CN.4/5.
The Cuban missile crisis October 1962, OFFICE of THE HISTORIAN, <https://history.state.gov/ milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis> สืบค้นเมื่อ 12 พฤษภาคม 2566.