The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Armed intervention, pursuing legitimacy and the pragmatic use of legal argument

På svenska

Author

Summary, in English

This study examines how States use legal arguments in cases of armed intervention and how this usage can influence the development of international law. The objective is to contribute to the understanding of the law on armed intervention by conducting a study of how States actually use legal arguments to justify or condemn armed interventions in actual cases. By assessing empirical material within a frame of abstract analysis of possible legal arguments and a pragmatic background of factual and concrete non-legal factors, this study is intended to contribute to the general understanding of the argumentation of States regarding armed interventions. An important aim within this objective is to provide for a wide appreciation of State conduct and argumentation around ideas of legitimacy and legality, primarily regarding the exceptions to the rule of non-use of force in international relations.

Publishing year

2005

Language

English

Document type

Dissertation

Publisher

Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights

Topic

  • Law

Keywords

  • armed intervention
  • international law
  • United Nations
  • public international law
  • state practise
  • self-defense
  • legal argument
  • human rights
  • Folkrätt

Status

Published

Project

  • Lund Human Rights Research Hub

Supervisor

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISBN: 91-628-6414-9

Defence date

27 April 2005

Defence time

10:15

Defence place

Kulturen (Auditoriet), Karlins plats, Lund.

Opponent

  • Said Mahmoudi (Professor)