Law Commons^™

The Unlawfulness Of A “Bloody Nose Strike” On North Korea, Kevin Jon Heller

International Law Studies

The United States has reportedly been debating whether to "react to some nuclear or missile test with a targeted strike against a North Korean facility to bloody Pyongyang’s nose and illustrate the high price the regime could pay for its behavior." This article asks a simple question: would such a “bloody nose strike” (BNS) violate the jus ad bellum?

Providing a coherent answer is complicated by the lack of clarity surrounding the United States’ planning. In particular, the U.S. government has not specified what kind of provocation it believes would justify launching a BNS, has not identified precisely what …

Strengthening The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Pathways For Bridging Law And Policy, Columbia Law School, 2020, Nobuhisa Ishizuka, Masahiro Kurosaki, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

During the three years leading up to this year ’s 60th anniversary of the signing of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, a series of workshops were held under the joint sponsorship of Columbia Law School’s Center for Japanese Legal Studies and the National Defense Academy of Japan’s Center for Global Security. Bringing together experts in international law and political science primarily from the United States and Japan, the workshops examined how differing approaches to use of force and understandings of individual and collective self-defense in the two countries might adversely affect their alliance.

The workshop participants explored the underlying causes …

The Right Of Counterintervention, John A. Perkins

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Ban On The Bomb – And Bombing: Iran, The U.S., And The International Law Of Self-Defense, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Mary Ellen O'Connell

Since the March 2003, U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, rumors have persisted of a United States plan to attack Iran. Some U.S. officials are apparently willing to contemplate the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Under international law, however, there is no right without Security Council authorization to use significant military force on the territory of another state to stop nuclear research. Knowing this, alternative arguments are being floated by those sympathetic to the plan to attack Iran. One such argument asserts that the U.S. could attack Iran on the basis of collective self-defense with Iraq …

The Ban On The Bomb – And Bombing: Iran, The U.S., And The International Law Of Self-Defense, Mary Ellen O'Connell, Maria Alevras-Chenl

Journal Articles

Since the March 2003, U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, rumors have persisted of a United States plan to attack Iran. Some U.S. officials are apparently willing to contemplate the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Under international law, however, there is no right without Security Council authorization to use significant military force on the territory of another state to stop nuclear research. Knowing this, alternative arguments are being floated by those sympathetic to the plan to attack Iran. One such argument asserts that the U.S. could attack Iran on the basis of collective self-defense with Iraq …

The Gulf War: 1990-2004 (And Still Counting), Yoram Dinstein

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

International Law And The 2003 Campaign Against Iraq, Nicholas Rostow

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of The Nato Bombing Operation In The Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia, Aaron Schwabach

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Examination Of The Proposed Crime Of Intervention In The Draft Code Of Crimes Against The Peace And Security Of Mankind, John Linarelli

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

International Law, The Oas And The Dominican Crisis, Charles G. Fenwick

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.