what is the different between aggression and self defence in the international law?
545509
aggression is when you provoke a fight, a verbal assault, a battery, etc\nself defence is when you try to protect yourself from such aggressions. self defence has to be reasonable, out of necessity
908885
I'm not finding in my legal dictionary, nor in a general Dutch dictionary. Sorry.\n\nFor the record, the term "force majeure" is a French phrase that means "a superior force", and generally applies to situations outside one's control. In US and English common law, the term refers to natural disasters, riots, wars, and similar situations.\n\n{EDIT} If you mean "Ubermacht", as the later answer suggests, then the translation would basically be "excessive force".\n\nIt could be equivalent to "force majeure", or it might refer to excessive and inappropraite force, such as using a level of force beyond that required for self-defense. But if it is a legal term of art, then the literal translation may not be that helpful.
989195
Israel owns america, , they kill its called self defense the Hamas and palestinians fight back in self defense, Israel calls it attacks. Israel needs to back off, they know they are wrong and they continue to defy their neighbors because america kisses there a$$
390386
Simple:\n\n1.  Walk away if possible, report any assaults promptly to local authorities.\n\n2.  If not possible to walk away, defend your self and report to authorities promptly.
618081
Look for it at, wikipedia.com, under international law. good luck
261607
Non violence and passive resistence. That means you don't fight back. It includes tactics like sitting for hours in a restaurant that will not serve you and going limp and not fighting when you are dragged out, even if they hit you. These tactics made an impression on the American people and brought about a change in the attitude of many who saw this in the newspapers and on television
378671
The United States Military is not a defense service.  Nor is the Indian Military.  The only true Self Defense Force is the Japanese military.  They are prohibited by law to engage in any combat action other than self defense of their country.  And that may change in the next 50 years...
1084818
It means murder, if it didn't mean this there would not have been armies led by God in the bible. Killing in time of war is self-defense when it is kill or be killed. This is something totally different than murder.
955909
Depends who is giving/assessing the justification.  Many people of both genders consider that their offending behaviour is to some extent justified ("I had to do it", "I didn't have any choice", "there was no other way", "you'd have done the same thing", etc, are commonly expressed views).\n\nOffences which might be viewed by a court as in some measure justified are those involving self-defence.  There are cases of women who kill a violent partner after years of physical, psychological and sexual abuse receiving more lenient sentences than murder would otherwise warrant because the extreme provocation and the need for her to protect herself and/or her children is such a potent mitigating factor.
961113
agression is to act in a hostile way towards something.
1139072
Terrorism:\n\nacts perpetrated by terrorists, i.e., those who target civilians indiscriminately for the purpose of intimidation.\n\nFreedom fighter:\n\nOne who wages war against a government which is oppressing his/her people, but does not target civilians.
84747
The Castle Doctrine IS the old law. The castle doctrine states that within your home, you have the right to use lethal force to protect yourself without facing prosecution. The new law allows someone to use lethal force if they believe their body is being threatened anywhere, their car or even public places, for instance.
52279
I will refer you to a jury instruction on self-defense.  It states the law in West Virgina in simple and clear term, and includes legal citations in support.\n\nThe central part is this:  \n\n"if the Defendant was not the aggressor, and had reasonable grounds to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he could save himself only by using deadly force against his assailant, then he had the right to employ deadly force in order to defend himself. By deadly force is meant force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm."\n\nBut there is more to it, and you should refer to the instruction.  It is not long.
1042348
There is a place where you can legally kill someone and get away with it.\n\nIt's called The United States of America.\n\nAll you have to do is prove self-defense.\n\nMaybe not what you were wondering?
998638
You have the right to own weapons to defend yourself
823682
The Law exists, and is there. However there are some little minor glitches here.\n1) Why do you have a gun?\n2)Why did you not attempt to walk away and call the Police/\n   (taking the Law in to your own hands...)\n3) you must be able to prove beyond reasonable "doubt" that    you  were in a situation of self defense, and you had no other recourse.\nMost likely you will go to prison, unless you can prove with witnesses.............
718325
The phrase "Peace through superior firepower" sums it up.  If your enemy knows that you can destroy them with one weapon, it acts as a deterrent.  They (the enemy) is less likely to attack.