The Right to Self-Defence in National and International Law: The Role of the Imminence Requirement

This article explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges directed at the imminence requirement, from the perspective of both national and international law. The article will attempt to illustrate that the requirement of imminence underlines the political character of the self-defence doctrine wherein private force may only be resorted to in the absence of institutional protection. This study will argue that the imminence rule can not merely be regarded as a "proxy" for establishing necessity; rather, the elements of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are inextricably connected to ensure that defensive force is only resorted to when national or international authorities are not in a position to prevent an illegal aggression, and that the defensive lethal force is not abused.

The Contours of the Right to Self-defence: Is the Requirement of Imminence Merely a Translator for the Concept of Necessity?

The right to self-defence has lately been subjected to intense academic controversy, both at the domestic and international level. The debate is focused on the question of whether or not the requirement of imminence is merely a translator for the notion of necessity. At the domestic level, the debate has mainly been kindled by feminist scholars, who, in the context of the 'battered woman', argue that the requirement of imminence should be discarded from the contours of the self-defence doctrine. The purpose of this article is to prove the necessity of the imminence requirement as a litmus test to detect possible abuses of the self-defence doctrine.

The Right to Work in the ECHR

The European Convention on Human Rights does not explicitly protect the right to work; nevertheless the ECHR case law protects aspects of this right. The paper summarises the content of the right to work and then demonstrates how the case law protects aspects of it. Article 8 can be used to protect the right to seek employment, while Articles 6 and 8 can be used to combat unfair dismissal. Other ECHR Articles prohibit discrimination. The paper concludes with some suggestions as to how to develop this trend in the case law. First, Article 8 should be recognised as protecting the negative aspects of the right to work. Second, the relationship between Article 8 and Article 14 needs clarification. Third, there is scope to develop positive obligations in relation to the right to work.