Explore the vast range of titles available.

A companion volume to the author's seminal textbook War, Aggression and Self-Defence, Third Edition, Cambridge (2001), this book focuses on issues arising in the course of hostilities between States, with an emphasis on the most recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The main themes considered by Yoram Dinstein are lawful and unlawful combatants, war crimes, including command responsibility and defences, prohibited weapons, the distinction between combatants and civilians, legitimate military objectives, and the protection of the environment and cultural property. Numerous specific topics that have attracted much interest in recent hostilities are addressed, such as human shields, feigned surrenders, collateral damage and proportionality, belligerent reprisals and weapons of mass destruction.

\"This is an interdisciplinary study of how power, security, polarity and the primacy of sovereign states play out in an international context that has witnessed the rise of non-state actors. It provides an updated analysis of the complex relationship of anarchy, power and politics by addressing issues of self-defense in a unipolar order\"--Provided by publisher.

The international legal norm that prohibits forcible annexations of territory is foundational to modern international law. It lies at the core of three projects that have been central to the enterprise: (1) to settle title to territory as the basis for establishing state authority; (2) to regulate the use of force across settled borders; and (3) to provide for people within settled borders collectively to determine their own fates. Prohibiting forcible annexations is integral to each of these projects independently, and by tying them together, has had a transformative effect on the legal system as a whole. However, its significance is widely overlooked or misunderstood. Analysts have also largely failed to appreciate that it is now caught up in a broader contest over the future world order and at risk of erosion.

The definition of the crime of aggression in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) stipulates that a State act of aggression is a material element of the crime, suggesting an intrinsic link between individual criminal responsibility and State responsibility for aggression. This article argues that the Rome Statute provides a legal basis for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to determine State responsibility for aggression when considering the material elements of the crime of aggression, which has important practical and conceptual implications for the law of international responsibility. Although the content of State responsibility flows automatically from the breach of the obligation, it is argued that a finding of aggression pursuant to Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute may be considered as a form of satisfaction for the purposes of Article 37 of the 2001 ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001 ILC Articles). Furthermore, the material element of the crime in Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute requires the act of aggression by its character, gravity, and scale to constitute a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in line with the nomenclature used within the 2001 ILC Articles regarding serious breaches of obligations arising from peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). The article considers the important role that the ICC may play in relation to serious breaches of the jus cogens obligation to refrain from an act of aggression.

This book examines to what extent the right of self-defence, as laid down in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, permits States to launch military operations against other States. In particular, it focuses on the occurrence of an 'armed attack' - the crucial trigger for the activation of this right. In light of the developments since 9/11, the author analyses relevant physical and verbal customary practice, ranging from the 1974 Definition of Aggression to recent incidents such as the 2001 US intervention in Afghanistan and the 2006 Israeli intervention in Lebanon. The notion of 'armed attack' is examined from a threefold perspective. What acts can be regarded as an 'armed attack'? When can an 'armed attack' be considered to take place? And from whom must an 'armed attack' emanate? By way of conclusion, the different findings are brought together in a draft 'Definition of Armed Attack'.

Who pays for the terrible destruction wrought by war? This problem is far from new, but it is currently receiving renewed attention as a result of the war in Ukraine. The options currently available to states that are the victims of unlawful wars in the postwar era are limited. For Ukraine, some have proposed addressing this shortfall by seizing frozen Russian sovereign assets, and both the United States and Canada have passed legislation permitting just that. European officials have considered a similar proposal, but they have thus far rejected them as too legally risky. Indeed, such plans run afoul of the longstanding international law doctrine of sovereign immunity. Put simply, they attempt to cure one international legal violation by engaging in another. In this Article, we offer another way forward for Ukraine and any other state that might find itself in this situation in the future: Ukraine may deploy what is known as the international law doctrine of countermeasures to freeze Russian sovereign assets in response to Russia's injurious and illegal conduct against it. We argue that frozen assets need not be returned to Russia at the close of the war as long as Russia has failed to pay reparations. That is because the failure to pay reparations is itself an unlawful act for which countermeasures (continued freezing of assets) may be kept in place even if the unlawful war has ceased. Moreover, other states may join Ukraine, putting in place collective countermeasures, sometimes called \"third-party\" countermeasures. However, we argue against using countermeasures doctrine to simply seize Russian assets; such seizures would not properly qualify as countermeasures and thus would violate international law. This approach to countermeasures, if adopted, could have implications beyond Ukraine, extending not only to future war reparations but also to international responses to cyber operations, human rights violations, or violations of environmental law obligations. Indeed, the challenge of securing reparations for Ukraine must be addressed not as a one-off problem but as a systemic one. We should therefore seek a solution that will benefit not just Ukrainians but other similarly situated actors in the future. This is yet another reason that existing ad hoc legislative proposals to seize Russian assets are inadequate: They might provide money to Ukrainians now, but they will undermine the international legal system while doing little to help future victims. Keeping the larger picture in view is not only important as a matter of equity and justice. It is also in the best interests of Ukraine, which must maintain unprecedented levels of global support for its ongoing defensive actions and efforts to hold the architects of this illegal war accountable for the extraordinary harm they have done. This Article's proposal for institutionalizing collective countermeasures meets this challenge, offering a way to reinforce the reparations obligation in circumstances beyond the present conflict.