English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The Heidelberg workshop of early November 2016 focused on the proper understanding of the term “armed attack” (which some participants sought to limit to attacks attributable to another State, while others argued that self-defence could justify the use of force abroad in response to attacks by non-State actors). While reflecting the current division of opinion between so-called “restrictivist” and “expansionist” approaches, for the most part debates proceeded from an accepted starting point. Most participants, including the workshop’s organisers, took for granted that traditionally, self-defence only covered responses against armed attacks by another State – hence repeated encouragements to focus on recent practice (notably recent strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] in Syria), with a view to assessing whether the traditional understanding had already been expanded. To put the question in those terms certainly simplifies the lines of argument. What is required is an assessment of the new developments, which may or may not be sustained enough to have led to a change in the law. The present, messy, situation is assessed against a clear background – the “old days” when the law was certain. The problem is that it wasn’t. The workshop’s focus on recent practice, and the allegedly new uncertainty, obscures the fact that the scope of selfdefence has been discussed throughout the Charter era. Whether States can use force in response to armed attacks by non-State actors operating from abroad is not a new issue that suddenly became relevant after 9/11. Views have no doubt changed over the past fifteen years, as more States have invoked, or endorsed the invocation of, self-defence against attacks by nonState actors. However, change is more gradual than is usually admitted. Three examples can serve to illustrate this modest point. All of them relate to incidents involving cross-border uses of force during the Cold War

Embracing the Uncertainty of Old: Armed Attacks by Non-State Actors Prior to 9/11