| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In reviewing the legality of pre-emptive self-defense, the question is raised, first, whether there is a case for tightening up the meaning of the term "self-defense" by calling it "legitimate self-defense", on account of its relative ambivalence in ordinary usage. Next, why self-defense in the territory of other States is different from self-defense in other areas is explained. Because the Caroline Incident is often invoked as legitimizing pre-emptive self-defense, and the reasoning of the Nuremberg judgment in one instance appears to support this view, an examination is made of the lessons to be learnt from the Caroline Incident as to the conditions governing self-defense and also of the relevant part of the Nuremberg judgment. The conclusion is that, while the verdict in the case concerned in the Nuremberg judgment is correct, the reasoning is open to question, and the Caroline Incident does not support the case of pre-emptive self-defense.
|