|
|
|
|
Lebanon : Everlasting Pawn of Israel and Hezbollah The July 2006 Invasion of Lebanon |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
|
Abstract:
|
War is a human game, and concern for the human rights violated by war led to an emphasis on various restrictions both as to the recourse to war ( jus ad bellum,) and to the ways it is conducted (jus in bello.) These circumscriptions are designed in certain aspects to moralize war or at least to alleviate its criminality. Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon transgressed those restrictions. The legitimate use of force is limited under international law to individual and collective self-defense, as specified by article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Even if it is accepted that article 51 grants Israel its right for self-defense, it must be remembered that self-defense needs to be limited-those principles are referred to as the 'Caroline Rules.'In the broader sense, I will argue that Israel did not violate the jus ad bellum but the jus in bello. Going beyond 'military necessity,' Israel, aggressively, transgressed 'standard restrictions,' leading to inflictions of harm that some even labeled war crimes. In summary: (1) the use of force against Lebanon would not be justified under international law unless: a) Lebanon mounted a direct attack on Israel or one of its allies and that requested Israel's assistance or b) an attack by Lebanon on Israel or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force or c) the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force in clear terms. This paper shows that: (2) Lebanon has not attacked Israel, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack was imminent. Nonetheless, a Lebanese guerrilla group, Hezbollah, which mounted an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory, held Lebanon responsible. (3) Security Council Resolutions did not authorize the use of force against Lebanon. Such use of force would require further authorization from Security Council. (4)At present, Israel was therefore entitled, under international law, to use force against Lebanon by invoking article 51 on self-defense, which it did, yet its violation of the 'proportionality' dropped the legality of its self-defense and shifted the nature of the war, from a defensive one, into a 'war of aggression.' |
|
 | Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES URL: http://www.isanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| "Lebanon : Everlasting Pawn of Israel and Hezbollah The July 2006 Invasion of Lebanon" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-05-23 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252340_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| , 2008-03-26 "Lebanon : Everlasting Pawn of Israel and Hezbollah The July 2006 Invasion of Lebanon" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA <Not Available>. 2009-05-23 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252340_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Abstract: War is a human game, and concern for the human rights violated by war led to an emphasis on various restrictions both as to the recourse to war ( jus ad bellum,) and to the ways it is conducted (jus in bello.) These circumscriptions are designed in certain aspects to moralize war or at least to alleviate its criminality. Israel's 2006 war on Lebanon transgressed those restrictions. The legitimate use of force is limited under international law to individual and collective self-defense, as specified by article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Even if it is accepted that article 51 grants Israel its right for self-defense, it must be remembered that self-defense needs to be limited-those principles are referred to as the 'Caroline Rules.'In the broader sense, I will argue that Israel did not violate the jus ad bellum but the jus in bello. Going beyond 'military necessity,' Israel, aggressively, transgressed 'standard restrictions,' leading to inflictions of harm that some even labeled war crimes. In summary: (1) the use of force against Lebanon would not be justified under international law unless: a) Lebanon mounted a direct attack on Israel or one of its allies and that requested Israel's assistance or b) an attack by Lebanon on Israel or one of its allies was imminent and could be averted in no way other than by the use of force or c) the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force in clear terms. This paper shows that: (2) Lebanon has not attacked Israel, and no evidence is currently available to the public that any attack was imminent. Nonetheless, a Lebanese guerrilla group, Hezbollah, which mounted an attack on Israel from Lebanese territory, held Lebanon responsible. (3) Security Council Resolutions did not authorize the use of force against Lebanon. Such use of force would require further authorization from Security Council. (4)At present, Israel was therefore entitled, under international law, to use force against Lebanon by invoking article 51 on self-defense, which it did, yet its violation of the 'proportionality' dropped the legality of its self-defense and shifted the nature of the war, from a defensive one, into a 'war of aggression.' |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
Similar Titles:
Testing the Second Level of Agenda Setting: Effects of News Frames on Reader-Assigned Attributes of Hezbollah and Israel in the 2006 War in Lebanon
Media in Crisis: Internet Uses During the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War
The First Mediated War – Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon Summer 2006
Mind the Gap: Explaining Israel's inability to 'win' the Second Lebanon War against Hezbollah
Framing the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War
|
|