Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  zakaz użycia siły
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
States use cyberspace as one of the platforms for pursuing national interests, also in the context of armed conflict. Due to their inherent purpose, certain principles of international law also apply to the activities of entities (state and non-state) in cyberspace. The main research problem was defined as the following question: under what conditions could the terms in international law be used to describe the events in Estonia in 2007 that imply the possibility of eventual responses or demands by victim parties consistent with international standards? In the article, the events in Estonia in 2007 were compared to existing methods of cyber warfare. The main research methods that were used to achieve the essential objective were: analysis of legal documents and critical analysis of the literature on the subject. The analysis is interdisciplinary in nature and will be particularly useful to researchers of international political and/or military relations and those interested in aspects of international security.
EN
The aim of the article is to answer the question on the role of the Charter of the United Nations for the international community, and in particular whether the Charter can be named the world constitution. The considerations upon this topic will be held from the perspective of the prohibition of the use of force. Thus, first of all, the prohibition itself should be briefly describe, in order to underline its absolute character and the fact that it was defined very broadly in the Charter. Secondly, one has to analyze the traits of the Charter as the potential constitutional act for the international community. Finally, these theoretical remarks will be referred to the states’ practice of application of the UN Charter. The conclusion stemming from such analysis indicates that the UN Charter may be formally named the world constitution, but in fact States do not treat obligations deriving from it as having any supreme power over their own national interests.
EN
The subject of this paper touches upon the prohibition to use force, and military force in particular, by States in self-defence. This is a classical example of an important and still very topical issue in international law practice. The right of each State to self-defence is perceived as one of the fundamental rights provided for in customary as well as positive international law. And yet, the exercise of this right has always raised many controversies and questions resulting, on the one hand, from the fact that the concept of self-defence has evolved over years, and, on the other hand, because of the recent tendencies to legalise different military actions carried out outside the framework of the United Nations Charter. These tendencies, presented in the paper in the context of military actions taken by states in situations of a potential terrorist attack, are described as either a pre-emptive, or a preventive use of military force. The author then concludes that although in the event of a pre-emptive military action taken by a State in reliance of its right to self-defence it may be justified to rely on the legal construction of self-defence, in the context of a preventive military operation, such reliance would be much more risky, if not inadmissible. A preventive use of military force fails to meet the criteria of legality of self-defence set forth in the UN Charter, as well as those resulting from international customary law.
PL
Problematyka artykułu nawiązuje do klasycznej, ale niezwykle ważnej i aktualnej w praktyce międzynarodowej problematyki zakazu użycia siły, zwłaszcza siły zbrojnej. Dotyczy bowiem możliwości podejmowania i realizowania przez państwa działań zbrojnych pod postacią samoobrony. Prawo każdego państwa do użycia siły w ramach samoobrony było i jest postrzegane jako jedno z praw fundamentalnych, gwarantowanych zarówno przez zwyczajowe, jak i pozytywne prawo międzynarodowe. Jego realizacja w praktyce budzi jednak wiele kontrowersji i pytań. Są one związane zarówno z ewolucją samej instytucji samoobrony, jak również z nowymi tendencjami w zakresie legalizowania różnych akcji zbrojnych dokonywanych poza ramami Karty Narodów Zjednoczonych. Autor prezentuje te tendencje, zwłaszcza w kontekście działań zbrojnych podejmowanych przez państwa w sytuacji potencjalnego zagrożenia atakami terrorystycznymi, a określanych jako uprzedzające i prewencyjne użycie siły. W konkluzji autor stwierdza, że o ile w wypadku zbrojnej operacji uprzedzającej uzasadnione jest odwoływanie się do konstrukcji prawnej samoobrony, o tyle w wypadku zbrojnej operacji prewencyjnej jest to znacznie bardziej ryzykowne, a wręcz nieuprawnione. Prewencyjne użycie siły zbrojnej nie spełnia bowiem kryteriów legalności samoobrony – zarówno tych określonych w Karcie Narodów Zjednoczonych, jak i tych wynikających z prawa zwyczajowego.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.