bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Caroline Incident—1837
Authors: Wood Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution summarizes the facts of the celebrated incident from 1837, in which British militia from Upper Canada crossed to the US shore of the Niagara River and set adrift a small rebel-operated vessel, The Caroline (which drifted over the Falls). The chapter cites the lengthy correspondence between US Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, and British Government’s representatives in Washington (Mr Fox and Lord Ashburton), in which Webster repeatedly used the celebrated Caroline formula (“a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”). The case is referred to, even today, in discussions of anticipatory self-defence, the requirements of necessity and proportionality, and the use of force against non-State actors. The chapter concludes by examining differing views on the current relevance of the Caroline incident and formula.
The Cuban Missile Crisis—1962
Authors: Orakhelashvili Alexander 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter begins with examining the context in which the US government decided to impose the quarantine against Cuba in 1962, in response to the Soviet nuclear missile placement in Cuba. The legality of the US measures is examined against the Charter of the United Nations, the OAS regional security framework, and general international law including the regime of belligerent rights. The final section addresses the precedential value of this incident, especially the ways in which legal advisers addressed the complex legal issues surrounding the Cuban missile crisis.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident—1964
Authors: Guilfoyle Douglas 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter examines the United States’ air strikes against torpedo boat bases in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in August 1964 in response to two claimed armed attacks against its naval units in the Gulf of Tonkin earlier that month. It considers the facts, historical context and operational environment. It examines the reactions at the time of the main actors, and their allies, in the Security Council. In assessing the incident’s legality it notes that several of the questions raised remain controversial today, including: (i) Can a state validly exercise self-defence based on a mistake of fact? (ii) Can self-defence encompass ‘preventative’ actions? (iii) Can an attack on a single vessel trigger a right of self-defence? (iv) Was the action proportionate and necessary? (v) How proximate in time must a (legal) defensive use of force be to the triggering armed attack in order to avoid being classed as a reprisal?
The Six Day War—1967
Authors: Quigley John B 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution analyzes the 1967 hostilities that began when Israel attacked Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula. It sets out the relations between Israel on the one hand and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria on the other that provided the background for the hostilities. It recounts actions by Egypt that provided the immediate context for the hostilities. It examines Israel’s claim made in the United Nations Security Council that Egypt opened the hostilities, and Egypt’s rejection of that claim. It examines the reaction of the international community when the hostilities were assessed first in the Security Council and then in a special session of the General Assembly. These hostilities have been widely taken as having involved anticipatory self-defense on Israel’s part, and as a precedent justifying anticipatory, or preventive, military action. This contribution examines the extent to which that analysis is warranted.
The USS Pueblo Incident—1968
Authors: Heintschel von Heinegg Wolff 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the 1968 USS Pueblo Incident by assessing the factual background on the basis of available documents and by providing a legal analysis on the basis of the then applicable international law. In view of the contentious issue of the USS Pueblo’s location at the time of the attack and her seizure by the armed forces of the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, the discussion of the legal issues at stake is not limited to the ius ad bellum but must be extended to the law of the sea, in particular the breadth of the territorial sea according to customary international law recognized in 1968 and the status of foreign warships. As regards the ius ad bellum, the unjustified use of force against a sovereign immune warship is considered an armed attack triggering the flag state’s right of self-defence.
Turkey’s Intervention in Cyprus—1974
Authors: Dörr Oliver 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the 1974 intervention by Turkey in Cyprus. It sets out the facts and context of the crisis, the legal positions of the main protagonists (Turkey and Greece), and the international community’s reactions. Concerning the intervention’s legality, it examines, above all, the right to intervene under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and the right to self-defence. The final section analyses the intervention’s precedential value and its impact on the jus ad bellum. It is argued that the role of the territorial state’s consent to the intervention was critical in the Cyprus case, and that the case clearly demonstrates that states may effectively limit their consent by agreeing on substantial restrictions or procedural prerequisites to the use of armed force on their territory.
The Entebbe Raid—1976
Authors: Kreß Claus , Nußberger Benjamin K 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
In 1976, Israel conducted a successful, but highly controversial military rescue operation in Entebbe, Uganda, to save its nationals taken hostage on Ugandan territory by members of the ‘Popular Front of Liberation of Palestine’. From an international legal perspective, this case revolves around the existence of a right of a state to take military action to protect its nationals abroad in mortal danger. Following an extensive legal debate in the Security Council on the incident, it appears safe to conclude that a rescue operation such as conducted in Entebbe passes the threshold for a use of force within the meaning of Article 2(4) UN Charter. In light of the ambiguous justification, however, it appears that an Entebbe-type situation falls within a grey area of the prohibition of the use of force. Still, the incident suggests that if states are willing to support the legality of a military rescue operation only the right of self-defence can conceivably justify such a use of force, and only in a case where the local state does not itself deal with the threat in good faith, and under strict conditions of proportionality.
The Killing of Khalil al-Wazir by Israeli Commandos in Tunis—1988
Authors: Pobjie Erin , Declercq Fanny , Van Steenberghe Raphaël 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the 1988 killing of Khalil Al-Wazir by Israeli commandos in Tunis. It first sets out the facts and context of the killing, the legal positions of the main protagonists (Israel and Tunisia) and the reactions of the international community. The chapter then examines the legal debate on targeted killing under the jus ad bellum that was raised by the incident. This chapter concludes that this precedent contributed to a strengthening of the view that even small-scale, targeted attacks by a state against non-state actors in another state violate the prohibition of the use of force.
The US Strikes Against Libya—1986
Authors: Kamto Maurice 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the US air strikes against Libya in 1986. It sets out the facts that led to the air strikes – notably the bombing of a West Berlin night club on 5 April 1986 –, the legal positions of the main protagonists (the US and Libya), and the international community’s reactions. It then tests the legality of the US strikes against the international legal framework governing the use of force as it stood at the time of the events, namely the rules governing the right to self-defence. The chapter concludes that the use of force in this particular case could not be convincingly justified under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The US Intervention in Panama—1989
Authors: Tsagourias Nicholas 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter examines the legality of the 1989 US intervention in Panama and assesses its impact on the use of force regime. After recalling the facts of the incident, it goes on to analyse the legal arguments provided by the US government to justify its action. More specifically, the US invoked its right to protect American citizens abroad as part of its right to self-defence; the right to intervene to protect the Panama Canal provided by the Panama Canal Treaties; and the invitation of the democratically elected Leader of the Opposition. The chapter then presents the reactions of states and the views of legal commentators. It concludes by saying that the incident affirms existing law but also contributes to the development of the rules regulating the use of force in international law.
The Intervention in Somalia—1992–95
Authors: Gill Terry D , Tibori-Szabó Kinga 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter examines the 1992-1995 intervention of the United Nations and the United States in Somalia. It sets out the facts and context of the crisis, the positions of the main protagonists (UN, US and Somalia) as well as the reactions of third states and international organisations. The chapter then discusses several questions regarding the legality of the intervention under the jus ad bellum. It first looks at the legal basis of the intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and the place of peace enforcement operations within that framework. It then analyses the types of mandates and their execution in the Somalian operations and lastly, it draws conclusions on the precedential value of the intervention for future UN collective operations.
The Eritrean–Ethiopian War—1998–2000
Authors: Murphy Sean D 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the Eritrean-Ethiopian War of 1998-2000. It sets out the facts and context of the crisis, the legal positions of the two countries, and the international community’s reactions. The Algiers Agreement ending the conflict established an Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, which concluded that Eritrea’s large-scale, transborder military operation at the outset of the conflict constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. Further, the commission made important findings with respect to the law on self-defense, such as that a state may not use armed force to seize disputed territory peacefully occupied by another state.
The Kosovo Crisis—1999
Authors: Franchini Daniel , Tzanakopoulos Antonios 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution discusses the forcible intervention by NATO against Serbia in 1999 in response to the situation in Kosovo. It sets out the facts and background of the crisis, along with the legal positions of the main protagonists and the reactions of the international community. It then proceeds to survey the debates surrounding the legality of the intervention and to assess the soundness of the legal justifications put forward by states and authors. Finally, it discusses the precedential value of the intervention, especially in view of claims of the existence or emergence of a rule or principle of international law permitting the unilateral use of force in response to humanitarian crises. The contribution concludes that the NATO intervention has significant precedential value in that it confirms the unlawfulness of forcible unilateral humanitarian intervention.
The Intervention in Afghanistan—2001–
Authors: Byers Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter addresses the US and NATO-led intervention in Afghanistan from 2001 to the present day. It examines the different legal justifications advanced or available for the intervention, namely self-defence, UN Security Council authorization, and intervention by invitation. It explores the complex relationships between these justifications and, particularly, the strategies adopted by states in choosing between them. The chapter concludes by considering the effects of the intervention on the customary international law of self-defence as it concerns non-state actors located in “unaware or unable” states, and anticipatory or pre-emptive responses.
Israeli Airstrikes in Syria—2003 and 2007
Authors: Moir Lindsay 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution examines the airstrikes carried out by Israel against Syria in 2003 and in 2007. It sets out the facts and context of both operations and the legal positions of the main protagonists (Israel and Syria), as well as the reactions of third states and international organisations. It then considers questions surrounding the legality of the airstrikes against the prevailing rules of international law regulating the resort to force, before discussing the extent to which either operation might have impacted upon the development of the jus ad bellum.
The Conflict in Georgia—2008
Authors: Gray Christine 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia. It explains the background of rising tensions between separatists in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the Georgian government; the outbreak of conflict; the Russian intervention; and the extension of the conflict beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It then examines Russia’s claims that it was acting in self-defence in protection of its nationals and of its peacekeeping forces in Georgia, and the reactions of other states to these claims. It also provides a critical account of the Report of the Independent International Fact-finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, and its controversial arguments, first, for a wide interpretation of the scope of the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) UN Charter as applicable to non-state entities, and, second, for a wide view of the concept of threat of force.
The Intervention of France and African Countries in Mali—2013
Authors: Bannelier Karine , Christakis Theodore 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This contribution analyses the joint French-African intervention in Mali in 2013. After recalling the facts of the intervention, it examines the legal positions of the main protagonists and the reactions of third States and international organizations. It then tests the operation in Mali against the international legal framework governing the use of force as it stood at the time of the events. While the French and African military Operations in Mali were clearly legal, they raise important questions of jus ad bellum regarding the legal arguments put forward to justify them: collective self-defense, intervention by invitation and UNSC authorization. The final section analyses the intervention’s precedential value and its impact on the law against force.
The Crisis in Ukraine—2014
Authors: O’Connell Mary Ellen 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
On 28 February 2014, Russian forces moved out of their base on the Black Sea into Crimea, triggering a crisis with Ukraine that quickly spread to Eastern Ukraine. Russia has attempted to justify its actions in Ukraine. On close analysis, no argument is adequate to avoid the charge of aggression, which is any serious violation of United Nations Charter Article 2(4). Article 2(4) is no mere treaty rule. It is jus cogens, a peremptory norm, meaning it is durable, impervious to modification. Facts on the ground in Ukraine may remain unchanged without sufficient international pressure. Regardless, Russia’s presence will remain unlawful.
The ECOWAS Intervention in The Gambia—2016
Authors: Helal Mohamed S 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses the legal justifications for the ECOWAS intervention in The Gambia, including: pro-democratic intervention, intervention by invitation, and Security Council authorization. It argues that the intervention is unjustifiable because pro-democratic intervention is not recognized as a legal basis for intervention, and because the Security Council did not authorize the intervention. The intervention is also not justifiable under the doctrine of intervention by invitation because President-Elect Adama Barrow did not exercise effective control when he invited ECOWAS to intervene to enforce the results of the 2016 Presidential Election. This chapter argues, however, when combined with earlier ECOWAS interventions, this intervention in The Gambia could signify a shift in the rules governing intervention by invitation, whereby a legitimate, but ineffective, government may enjoy the right to invite foreign intervention. Finally, this chapter argues that ECOWAS violated the prohibition on the threat of force by issuing an ultimatum to force the former Gambian President to relinquish power.
Liquidated Damages and Penalty Clauses
Authors: Halson Roger 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This book focuses on liquidated damages and penalty clauses, and analyses the common law jurisdiction to control stipulated damages clauses, as well as the distinction between enforceable liquidated damages clauses and unenforceable penalty clauses. The first part of the book examines the historical origin of the control of these clauses; the second part describes the current control of such clauses and their legal effect, while the third part of the book critically examines the various rationales that have been proposed to justify their regulation. The final part of the book describes analogous provisions and how to avoid drafting contractual clauses that are rendered unenforceable by the penalty rule. The book examines approaches in several common law jurisdictions in addition to England and Wales, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and brings together principles developed in distinct commercial law contexts (such as shipping contracts) to enable comparison between particular contractual settings.
The Legal Effect of Classification as a ‘Penalty’ or a Valid Liquidated Damages Clause
Authors: Halson Roger 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
The previous chapter described the test laid down in the Cavendish case that determines the validity of any stipulated damages clause. In summary, a clause will be unenforceable which seeks to impose upon a party in breach of contract: a detriment which is not proportionate to any legitimate interest of the other party to the contract; or in ‘straightforward’ cases (still governed by the older Dunlop test): a detriment which is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ in comparison with a ‘genuine pre-estimate’ of the loss that would result from the payer’s breach of contract. This chapter discusses the legal effect of contractual provisions which stipulate for a detriment which first satisfy whichever of the tests above is applicable to it (legal effect: liquidated damages clause) and then the legal effect, if any, of a contractual clause that fails to satisfy the applicable test (legal effect: penalty clause).
International Agreements and Supranational Bodies
Authors: Walker George , Purves Robert , Blair Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter focuses on some of the international agreements and supranational bodies in the banking and financial services sector that perform a variety of functions, from collating collective research and compiling statistics, to providing a framework for standard setting and mediating disputes between national interests. It first considers the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and WTO agreements, dispute resolution under WTO proceedings, and financial services under the WTO before turning to other supranational bodies such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Basel Committee, Financial Action Task Force, and International Accounting Standards Board. The chapter also examines the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and its impact on non-US entities and how the credit crunch affected the role of supranational bodies in creating financial stability in the global market. Finally, it analyses the future of supranational bodies in a global economy.
The PRA and FCA
Authors: Walker George , Purves Robert , Blair Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter focuses on the functions of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as statutory regulators of the financial services sector in the UK. It begins with a discussion of the constitutional provisions establishing the FCA and the PRA by virtue of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). It then considers the remit of the FCA and the PRA, along with their general functions and duties, statutory objectives, and regulatory principles with respect to financial services regulation. It also examines the boundary between FCA and PRA responsibilities, arrangements for the supervision of regulated firms and for enforcement, and the co-ordination between the FCA and the PRA in the exercise of their function. Finally, it describes the PRA's power of direction, directions relating to consolidated supervision, and central government and Parliamentary oversight of the regulators.
The FCA Handbook and the PRA Rulebook
Authors: Walker George , Purves Robert , Blair Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter focuses on the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Handbook of Rules and Guidance and the Prudential Regulation Authority's (PRA) Rulebook. The FCA Handbook of Rules and Guidance and the PRA Rulebook are two of the most important products or physical expressions of the FCA and PRA's general functions with respect to financial services regulation: they are the primary consolidation of the rules, and (in the case of the FCA) guidance through which that regulator performs its particular functions. The chapter first explains what material goes into the FCA Handbook and the PRA Rulebook before providing an overview of the structure and content of each document. It then examines high-level standards in the FCA Handbook and the PRA Rulebook, along with the rise and fall of principles-based regulation in the UK. It also considers the processes governing the Handbook and Rulebook as well as the interpretation of both documents.
Regulatory Processes— Authorisation and Supervision
Authors: Walker George , Purves Robert , Blair Michael 
Published: July 2018

Abstract
This chapter discusses four ways in which a person can conduct regulated activities in the UK without contravening the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA): they can be either exempt, passported, unauthorised but exempted from the general prohibition, or hold a relevant permission under Part 4A of the FSMA. It first explains exemptions and exempt persons under FSMA before addressing the question of whether a person requires authorisation and who are eligible to apply for authorisation. It then considers the consequences of authorisation, the authorisation process, permissions under Part 4A of the FSMA, variations and cancellations of a permission, and the procedure for authorisation application. It also examines how applications for authorisation are determined and concludes with an analysis of the supervision process used by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), along with the enforcement processes.