Metal-reinforced alumina

Ruys, Andrew J.; O’Regan, Annabelle

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102869-8.00006-9

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…175 It is almost certainly for this reason-namely that there is no unequivocal position discernible from State practice on how immediate defensive responses ought to be viewed-that scholars have argued against a strict application of this aspect of necessity. 176 Turning to the question of whether the use of armed force by Egypt was a 'last resort', an element of the necessity criterion that arguably carries less legal weight than its immediacy counterpart, 177 the answer is more straightforward. It could be plausibly argued that peaceful, diplomatic means would have been futile in the instant case in view of Libya's lack of control over the territory from which terrorists launched a series of attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt.…”

Section: Necessity and Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Another Hole in the Wall? Evaluating the Legality of Egypt’s 2017 Airstrikes Against Non-State Targets in Libya Under the Jus ad Bellum

Birkett

2022

Neth Int Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In May 2017, the Egyptian armed forces conducted airstrikes against non-State targets in the neighbouring State of Libya in response to a series of attacks perpetrated against groups of Coptic Christians on Egyptian territory, killings later claimed by the self-styled Islamic State. In justifying its use of armed force, resort to which is generally impermissible in international law, Egypt purports to rely upon two exceptions to this general rule, namely: (i) authorisation on the part of the United Nations Security Council; and (ii) self-defence, while also invoking the doctrine of military assistance on request (or intervention by invitation). This article tests the legality of Egypt’s airstrikes—which have yet to be subjected to scholarly attention—in light of the three foregoing justifications. In so doing, the article evaluates the implications of this use of force for the jus ad bellum, particularly the law regulating resort to force by way of response to an armed attack for which not another State, but a non-State actor, is responsible.

show abstract

Section: Necessity and Proportionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Another Hole in the Wall? Evaluating the Legality of Egypt’s 2017 Airstrikes Against Non-State Targets in Libya Under the Jus ad Bellum

Birkett

2022

Neth Int Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Metal-reinforced alumina

Cited by 1 publication

References 98 publications

Another Hole in the Wall? Evaluating the Legality of Egypt’s 2017 Airstrikes Against Non-State Targets in Libya Under the Jus ad Bellum

Another Hole in the Wall? Evaluating the Legality of Egypt’s 2017 Airstrikes Against Non-State Targets in Libya Under the Jus ad Bellum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About