In light of the military strikes against Iran, I thought that it might be useful to offer a basic primer on the principles of international law that govern President Trump's use of military force, and offer some thoughts on how these principles might apply to the strikes on Iran.
Chuck, thanks for the great primer. I hope everyone who reads this realizes, first, what a complicated matter this is and, second, the importance of the rule of law in international diplomacy and conflict prevention. The fact that relatively little discussion about jus ad bellum occurred prior to the US strike on Iran suggests to me that the law -- at least in this Administration -- isn't nearly as important as the need to create a perception of strength. Your piece fills that gap.
The Administration did file a War Powers Act notice (but as I recall, this is usually prepared by Chairman's Legal) the gave "collective defense" as the jus as bellum justification. I understand that the NSC legal counsel position is unfilled after Ney left.
Chuck, thanks for the great primer. I hope everyone who reads this realizes, first, what a complicated matter this is and, second, the importance of the rule of law in international diplomacy and conflict prevention. The fact that relatively little discussion about jus ad bellum occurred prior to the US strike on Iran suggests to me that the law -- at least in this Administration -- isn't nearly as important as the need to create a perception of strength. Your piece fills that gap.
The Administration did file a War Powers Act notice (but as I recall, this is usually prepared by Chairman's Legal) the gave "collective defense" as the jus as bellum justification. I understand that the NSC legal counsel position is unfilled after Ney left.