Skip Navigation


Journal of Conflict and Security Law Advance Access originally published online on August 12, 2008
Journal of Conflict and Security Law 2008 13(1):33-48; doi:10.1093/jcsl/krn015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
13/1/33    most recent
krn015v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kinacioglu, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2008; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A Response to Amos Guiora: Reassessing the Parameters of Use of Force in the Age of Terrorism

Muge Kinacioglu*

* Department of International Relations, Bilkent University, Turkey.

Correspondence: E-mail: mkinaci{at}bilkent.edu.tr.


  Abstract

This commentary examines the "strict-scrutiny" approach to self-defence as proposed by Professor Amos N. Guiora and analyzes whether it provides for a clear guideline as to when states may carry out pre-emptive and anticipatory action against a non-state actor. It reviews the existing concepts of the right of self-defence and pre-emption under international law, with special emphasis on the prevailing debates stemming from contesting interpretations of the related law. In addition, the commentary assesses the relevant decisions in international litigation and state practice to shed light on the application of the conditions for admissible use of force in specific instances of the use of force. In the second part, the commentary critically examines the merits and applicability of Professor Guiora's proposal. It concludes that when there is an international organization (United Nations) which is empowered as a world court, the utility of such domestic mechanism would be limited in terms of providing a legal and moral right to act preventatively.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.