| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The international legal discourse, whether in theory or practice, has long focused on how situations gravely affecting the national security of States would impact their legal rights and obligations. In a way, the discourse on threats is essentially about whether international law could retain its validity as a body of neutral rules in situations where extreme emergencies are arguably involved, as has been witnessed in arguments from the ancient notion of self-preservation to modern claims of exceptional legality that are developed in the context of counter-terrorist activities and encompass multiple areas of international law including jus ad bellum, humanitarian law and human rights law. This contribution examines whether the discourse on threats is inherently extra-legal, that is, if it qualifies the validity of law due to policy considerations that are external, and thus alien, to it; or whether and to what extent international law actually provides for the entitlement of States to act in the face of serious national emergencies.
|