This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/when-self-defence-comes-in-the-form-of-sustained-airstrikes

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
When self-defence comes in the form of sustained airstrikes When self-defence comes in the form of sustained airstrikes
(about 5 hours later)
The French president’s declaration that his country is engaged in “war against jihadi terrorism” and will “destroy” Isis highlights how the law regulating conflicts between governments and non-state, terrorist organisations is under pressure to evolve. The French president’s declaration that his country is engaged in “war against jihadi terrorism” and will “destroy” Islamic State highlights how the law regulating conflicts between governments and non-state terrorist organisations is under pressure to evolve.
François Hollande’s forthright speech orders a sustained bombing campaign, and his decision not to seek broader Nato support immediately for airstrikes against Isis suggests he harbours few doubts over the justification for military action.François Hollande’s forthright speech orders a sustained bombing campaign, and his decision not to seek broader Nato support immediately for airstrikes against Isis suggests he harbours few doubts over the justification for military action.
In legal terms, last Friday’s Paris attacks do not mark a watershed: France has been bombing Isis facilities in Syria since September. It has consistently justified attacks on the grounds of national security and “self-defence” in response to earlier Islamist terror threats against the country.In legal terms, last Friday’s Paris attacks do not mark a watershed: France has been bombing Isis facilities in Syria since September. It has consistently justified attacks on the grounds of national security and “self-defence” in response to earlier Islamist terror threats against the country.
Russia has questioned the legal foundation for France’s intervention; the United States, already involved in military action, has made no comment.Russia has questioned the legal foundation for France’s intervention; the United States, already involved in military action, has made no comment.
President Barack Obama, who in 2013 denounced the previous US administration’s “war on terror”, has nonetheless defended strikes in Syria, claiming that previous legal justifications of self-defence against al-Qaida still hold legal force against the actions of the self-proclaimed Islamic State caliphate.President Barack Obama, who in 2013 denounced the previous US administration’s “war on terror”, has nonetheless defended strikes in Syria, claiming that previous legal justifications of self-defence against al-Qaida still hold legal force against the actions of the self-proclaimed Islamic State caliphate.
Dr Mark Ellis, the American lawyer who heads the International Bar Association, said: “Because of these new conditions - where non-state actors openly say they are targeting countries - there’s room for a broader interpretation of self-defence measures in terms of armed attacks.Dr Mark Ellis, the American lawyer who heads the International Bar Association, said: “Because of these new conditions - where non-state actors openly say they are targeting countries - there’s room for a broader interpretation of self-defence measures in terms of armed attacks.
“There’s a process that’s occurring in international law because of the number of irregular actors playing such a vicious role in the international community [is increasing].” “There’s a process that’s occurring in international law because of the increasing number of irregular actors playing such a vicious role in the international community.”
The legal restraints governing what constitutes self-defence and imminent threats are “disappearing or being weakened,” Ellis suggested. The international community is moving towards broadening the justification of “anticipatory self-defence”. The legal restraints governing what constitutes self-defence and imminent threats are “disappearing or being weakened”, Ellis suggested. The international community is moving towards broadening the justification of “anticipatory self-defence”.
“We don’t need to know exactly the time and place [of a threat] because there’s the declared intent to do harm,” he added, “but it opens the possibility of other state actors interpreting this in differnt ways.” “We don’t need to know exactly the time and place [of a threat] because there’s the declared intent to do harm,” he added, “but it opens the possibility of other state actors interpreting this in different ways.”
The last time Article Five of the Nato treaty - which provides for collective defence - was invoked came in the aftermath of the 2001 al-Qaida attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. The UN security council subsequently authorised the intervention against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The last time Article Five of the Nato treaty – which provides for collective defence – was invoked came in the aftermath of the 2001 al-Qaida attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. The UN security council subsequently authorised the intervention against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
A vote by Nato and its member states to take part in collective action in defence of France now would not provide a legal basis for military action but would result in many more governments clamouring for a UN security council motion legitimising the use of military force.A vote by Nato and its member states to take part in collective action in defence of France now would not provide a legal basis for military action but would result in many more governments clamouring for a UN security council motion legitimising the use of military force.
The attacks in Paris on Friday have may have tilted opinion at Wesminster towards overt UK involvement in airstrikes against Isis; targeted drone killings of high profile British Isis activists have already been carried out by the RAF. The attacks in Paris on Friday may have tilted opinion at Westminster towards overt UK involvement in airstrikes against Isis; targeted drone killings of high-profile British Isis activists have already been carried out by the RAF.
David Cameron has relied upon the same principle embodied in article 51 of the UN charter to justify attacks in Syria; that clause guarantees a state’s right to self-defence in the face of an imminent threat. Britain’s envoy to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, has provided further legal justification for the RAF killing of Isis fighters in Syria, declaring that it was on behalf of the “collective self-defence of Iraq”.David Cameron has relied upon the same principle embodied in article 51 of the UN charter to justify attacks in Syria; that clause guarantees a state’s right to self-defence in the face of an imminent threat. Britain’s envoy to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, has provided further legal justification for the RAF killing of Isis fighters in Syria, declaring that it was on behalf of the “collective self-defence of Iraq”.
Asked on Monday whether the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, had been asked to provide fresh advice on the legality of broader RAF action over Syria, his office declined to comment.Asked on Monday whether the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, had been asked to provide fresh advice on the legality of broader RAF action over Syria, his office declined to comment.
A spokesperson said that they relied on the Law Officers’ convention under which neither the fact that legal advice has been sought, or its contents, are confirmed.A spokesperson said that they relied on the Law Officers’ convention under which neither the fact that legal advice has been sought, or its contents, are confirmed.
The convention itself is occasionally breached by the attorney general’s office itself under what are deeemed to be exceptional circumstances; in September, Wright told MPs on the justice select committee that he had provided Downing Street with advice on RAF drone strikes in Syria - but refused to disclose his legal opinion. The convention itself is occasionally breached by the attorney general’s office itself under what are deemed to be exceptional circumstances; in September, Wright told MPs on the justice select committee that he had provided Downing Street with advice on RAF drone strikes in Syria – but refused to disclose his legal opinion.
Commenting on the possibility of Britain joining airstrikes in Syria, the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “A few British bombs on top of the Russian and American ones will achieve little, and could even make the situation worse. We must not play into Isis’ narrative that they are being opposed only by ‘the west’. Importantly, Britain must not be knee-jerk in our response: the fact that something must be done doesn’t mean you do something that is going to be counterproductive.”Commenting on the possibility of Britain joining airstrikes in Syria, the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “A few British bombs on top of the Russian and American ones will achieve little, and could even make the situation worse. We must not play into Isis’ narrative that they are being opposed only by ‘the west’. Importantly, Britain must not be knee-jerk in our response: the fact that something must be done doesn’t mean you do something that is going to be counterproductive.”
The prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Roberstson QC has argued in the past that a UN security council motion is not necessary to stop or punish a crime against humanity.The prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Roberstson QC has argued in the past that a UN security council motion is not necessary to stop or punish a crime against humanity.