Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(The Australian) Leanne Piggott - The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice has implications far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buried in the text of its opinion is a bombshell that radically rewrites the rules of international law governing the inherent right of states to defend themselves and their citizens. The ICJ says this right is limited to self-defense in the case of armed attack "by one state against another state," although that limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of Article 51 itself. Article 51 recognizes that states have an inherent right of self-defense "if an armed attack occurs." It does not say that the armed attack must have been carried out by, or be attributable to, another state. The ICJ is now saying that if terrorists based in the territory of state A attack state B without the passive or active support of state A, state B may not have the right to defend itself from future attack by striking back at the terrorist base - despite Article 51. The writer is a lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Sydney. 2004-07-13 00:00:00Full Article
Judges' Ruling Rewrites UN Charter on Self-Defense
(The Australian) Leanne Piggott - The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice has implications far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buried in the text of its opinion is a bombshell that radically rewrites the rules of international law governing the inherent right of states to defend themselves and their citizens. The ICJ says this right is limited to self-defense in the case of armed attack "by one state against another state," although that limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of Article 51 itself. Article 51 recognizes that states have an inherent right of self-defense "if an armed attack occurs." It does not say that the armed attack must have been carried out by, or be attributable to, another state. The ICJ is now saying that if terrorists based in the territory of state A attack state B without the passive or active support of state A, state B may not have the right to defend itself from future attack by striking back at the terrorist base - despite Article 51. The writer is a lecturer in Middle East politics at the University of Sydney. 2004-07-13 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|