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.

From inconsistency handling to non-canonical requirements management: A logical perspective

As a class of defects in software requirements specification, inconsistency has been widely studied in both requirements engineering and software engineering. It has been increasingly recognized that maintaining consistency alone often results in some other types of non-canonical requirements, including incompleteness of a requirements specification, vague requirements statements, and redundant requirements statements. It is therefore desirable for inconsistency handling to take into account the related non-canonical requirements in requirements engineering. To address this issue, we propose an intuitive generalization of logical techniques for handling inconsistency to those that are suitable for managing non-canonical requirements, which deals with incompleteness and redundancy, in addition to inconsistency. We first argue that measuring non-canonical requirements plays a crucial role in handling them effectively. We then present a measure-driven logic framework for managing non-canonical requirements. The framework consists of five main parts, identifying non-canonical requirements, measuring them, generating candidate proposals for handling them, choosing commonly acceptable proposals, and revising them according to the chosen proposals. This generalization can be considered as an attempt to handle non-canonical requirements along with logic-based inconsistency handling in requirements engineering.