Benjamin is head coach for Oxford's team for the Philip C Jessup International Law Moot Court and on an academic visit to Oxford.
As a doctoral candidate at the University of Cologne, Benjamin has specialized in Public International Law. His research focuses on field of the ius ad bellum and more specifically on inter-State assistance to operations involving the use of force. Benjamin is a fellow of the German Academic Scholarship Foundation, which generously funds his work and academic visit to Oxford. In the past, Benjamin’s visit has been also supported by the German Academic Exchange Service.
Benjamin is also employed as a researcher at the at Cologne University. Previously, he has worked at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, University of Heidelberg, and the Human Rights Institute of Columbia Law School. Most recently, Benjamin has worked as legal intern for the Codification Division of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs as well as United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Benjamin has completed the German State Exam at Heidelberg University. In 2016-2017, Benjamin has been a Fulbright Scholar, ERP Fellow and Morris Fellow at Columbia Law School, New York. There, he has obtained an LL.M. degree, for which he was awarded the Walter Gellhorn Prize for best overall performance and the James Kent Scholarship.
- DOI: 10.1093/law/9780198784357.001.0001ISBN: 9780198784357DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1256565The international community has apparently accepted that Operation Decisive Storm, a Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen in 2015, is in compliance with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Against the background of the all-inclusive Yemeni transition heralded by the international community as a ‘model process’, this article analyses the implications of the Yemeni conflict for the evolution of accepted exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force. First, the intervening coalition’s core argument – the doctrine of intervention by invitation – is examined, addressing the impact of an ongoing ‘civil war situation’ and the ineffectiveness of a legitimate but ousted government. The juxtaposition of the Yemeni conflict with recent interventions by invitation in Mali, Ukraine, Iraq and Syria demonstrates that the government’s consent has a legitimising effect during an ‘established transitional process’. Second, it will be argued that the claim to (individual and collective) self-defence has only limited value in the present scenario.DOI: 10.1080/20531702.2017.1338466DOI: 10.1007/s12399-017-0643-zAm 19. Januar 2017 marschierten Trupp en unter Führung desSenegals und im Rahmen der ECOWAS in Gambia ein. Ziel war es, die seit Dezember 2016 schwelende Verfassungskrise zu beenden, und dem Sieger der Präsidentschaftswahlen, Adama Barrow, die Aufnahme seines Amts zu ermöglichen. Völkerrechtlich sowie völkerrechtspolitisch erweist sich der Fall Gambia als hochinteressant. Denn bei seiner genaueren Betrachtung tritt ein von modernen Erwägungen demokratischer Legitimität inspiriertes subtiles Zusammenspiel einer Resolution des Sicherheitsrats der Vereinten Nationen mit der klassischen Figur der Intervention auf Einladung hervor.DOI: 10.1515/jura-2016-0280
Public International Law; Ius ad Bellum; Complicity in International Law