Self-defence against terrorism in the post 9/11 world

In 1986 the then United States Secretary of State George Shultz asserted that: It is absurd to argue that international law prohibits us from capturing terrorists in international waters or airspace; from attacking them on the soil of other nations, even for the purpose of rescuing hostages; or from using force against states that support, train and harbor terrorists or guerrillas. At that time the United States’ claim of a right to use military force in self-defence against terrorism2 received little support from other states.3 The predominant view then was that terrorist attacks committed by private or non-state actors were a form of criminal activity to be combated through domestic and international criminal justice mechanisms. The notion that such terrorist acts should be treated as ‘armed attacks’ triggering a victim state’s right of self-defence was not accepted by the majority of states. To suggest, as Shultz had done, that a state not directly responsible for terrorist acts could have its territorial integrity violated by military action targeting terrorists located within that state, was a controversial proposition in 1986. However, some fifteen years later, when the United States and a coalition of allies launched a military campaign in Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 (hereafter ‘9/11’) terrorist attacks, there was virtually unanimous international support for the use of force.

Hierarchical Bayesian modelling of early detection surveillance for plant pest invasions

Early detection surveillance programs aim to find invasions of exotic plant pests and diseases before they are too widespread to eradicate. However, the value of these programs can be difficult to justify when no positive detections are made. To demonstrate the value of pest absence information provided by these programs, we use a hierarchical Bayesian framework to model estimates of incursion extent with and without surveillance. A model for the latent invasion process provides the baseline against which surveillance data are assessed. Ecological knowledge and pest management criteria are introduced into the model using informative priors for invasion parameters. Observation models assimilate information from spatio-temporal presence/absence data to accommodate imperfect detection and generate posterior estimates of pest extent. When applied to an early detection program operating in Queensland, Australia, the framework demonstrates that this typical surveillance regime provides a modest reduction in the estimate that a surveyed district is infested. More importantly, the model suggests that early detection surveillance programs can provide a dramatic reduction in the putative area of incursion and therefore offer a substantial benefit to incursion management. By mapping spatial estimates of the point probability of infestation, the model identifies where future surveillance resources can be most effectively deployed.

Israel's airstrike on Syria's Al-Kibar facility : a test case for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence?

This article analyses the legality of Israel’s 2007 airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility at Al-Kibar—an incident that has been largely overlooked by international lawyers to date. The absence of a threat of imminent attack from Syria means Israel’s military action was not a lawful exercise of anticipatory self-defence. Yet, despite Israel’s clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force there was remarkably little condemnation from other states, suggesting the possibility of growing international support for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. This article argues that the muted international reaction to Israel’s pre-emptive action was the result of political factors, and should not be seen as endorsement of the legality of the airstrike. As such, a lack of opinio juris means the Al-Kibar episode cannot be viewed as extending the scope of the customary international law right of self-defence so as to permit the use of force against non-imminent threats. However, two features of this incident—namely, Israel’s failure to offer any legal justification for its airstrike, and the international community’s apparent lack of concern over legality—are also evident in other recent uses of force in the ‘war on terror’ context. These developments may indicate a shift in state practice involving a downgrading of the role of international law in discussions of the use of force. This may signal a declining perception of the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum, at least in cases involving minor uses of force.

Demonstration of cellulosic ethanol production from sugarcane bagasse in Australia : the Mackay Renewable Biocommodities Pilot Plant

The ready availability of sugarcane bagasse at an existing industrial facility and the potential availability of extra fibre through trash collection make sugarcane fibre the best candidate for early stage commercialisation of cellulosic ethanol technologies. The commercialisation of cellulosic ethanol technologies in the sugar industry requires both development of novel technologies and the assessment of these technologies at a pre-commercial scale. In 2007, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) received funding from the Australian and Queensland Governments to construct a pilot research and development facility for the production of bioethanol and other renewable biocommodities from biomass including sugarcane bagasse. This facility has been built on the site of the Racecourse Sugar Mill in Mackay, Queensland and is known as the Mackay Renewable Biocommodities Pilot Plant (MRBPP). This research facility is capable of processing cellulosic biomass by a variety of pretreatment technologies and includes equipment for enzymatic saccharification, fermentation and distillation to produce ethanol. Lignin and fermentation co-products can also be produced in the pilot facility.

The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context

In Miller v Miller (2011) 85 ALJR 480; [2011] HCA 9 the High Court examined the complex issue of joint illegal activity. The issue before the court was whether a plaintiff who had engaged in an illegal activity with the defendant may claim damages in negligence. In its decision the court analysed the cases of Henwood v Municipal Tramways Trust (SA) (1938) 60 CLR 438, Smith v Jenkins (1970) 119 CLR 397, Jackson v Harrison (1978) 138 CLR 438 and Gala v Preston (1991) 172 CLR 243.