DANDY NWAOGU

Sexual violence is an extensive and deeply distressing crime that poses significant challenges to the criminal justice systems globally, particularly in Nigeria, and this is often committed in private, without witnesses, and under conditions where victims face social stigmatization and psychological trauma which could range from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other traumatic related issues, such crimes are infamously difficult to investigate and prosecute, It remains a pervasive and deeply rooted issue in Nigeria, cutting across social, economic and cultural boundaries, This study explores the prevalence , causes and consequences of sexual violence crimes in the country, examining both the systemic failures and cultural attitudes that enables it's persistence, it examines the application of forensic evidence as an essential tool in detecting and prosecuting sexual violence crimes, focusing on how scientific methods can improve the effectiveness and credibility of investigations and legal proceedings worldwide, with particular focus on Nigeria, with the primary aim to explore how forensic techniques such as DNA analysis, toxicology, fingerprint, forensic pathology,crime scene reconstruction, and expert testimony and other forensic techniques can assist law enforcement agencies and the judiciary in obtaining objective and more accurate evidence in sexual offence cases. Furthermore, this study seeks to identify the forensic methods most relevant to such crimes, assess the challenges inhibiting their effective application in Nigeria, and propose legal and institutional reforms to enhance their uses.

This study examines the Use of Force in Public International Law, the prohibition of the use of force as provided for in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and the exceptions to the use of force as provided for in Article 51 of the Charter. It also examines the non-state actors— Hezbollah’s and Houthi’s attacks against the State of Israel, the unwillingness of the Governments of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen to address those attacks, and the State of Israel’s right to self-defense which includes preemptive strikes and preventive strategies with focus on the State of Israel’s legitimate rights to resort to the use of armed force guaranteed by the principle of jus ad bellum. The significance of the Caroline Test in Customary International Law, the Bethlehem Principles, and state practice as justifications for the State of Israel’s anticipatory/preemptive attacks against Lebanon, Yemen and the Islamic Republic of Iran. By carefully examining the fundamental principles provided for in the United Nations Charter and customary international law, this study aims to explore the key requirements that must be satisfied before a given state can legally resort to anticipatory/preemptive self-defense. The concept of anticipatory/preemptive self-defense under Public International Law has always been contentious and controversial, however, in the aftermath of the terrorists’ attacks of September 11, 2001, the principle has become even more controversial, as the US President, Bush adopted a new national security strategy. Consequently, the Bush administration contended that the United States “must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries… the greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.” 1The debate as to whether anticipatory/preemptive self-defense is legally justified is largely dependent on the understanding of the contemporary dynamics of Public International Law, as there has been a clear shift from what was obtainable at the Charter was adopted. There is absolutely no doubt that the resort to anticipatory/preemptive military action without a corresponding imminent threat is unlawful and unjustified, however, if the extant legal framework as provided for by the United Nations Charter does no longer precisely reflect the current Public International Law, then it would be argued that resort to anticipatory/preemptive self-defense may, in fact be lawful, though politically unwise.2The focus of this study is to evaluate through doctrinal legal research, analysis of critical international jurisprudence, state practice, and the analysis of case study the extent to which the State of Israel’s anticipatory/preemptive self-defense complies with the well-established rules of Public International Law as it pertains to international peace and security which are fundamental to the objectives of the United Nations Charter. Further, it critically examines the doctrine of anticipatory/preemptive use of force against the backdrops of contemporary threats of the acquisition of nuclear weapons, terrorism, proxy warfare, drone and missile attacks.

There is no doubt that the internet has added a great deal to the quality of human life in the contemporary world. It has knitted the world together as a global village. Many difficulties which hampered international and even national commercial transactions in the past have now been consigned to the dust-bin of history. The emergence of electronic commerce has occurred as a result of the development of the internet, and commercial transactions are conducted through it between parties from different parts of the world who may never see themselves in their lifetimes. However, the emergence of electronic commerce has also brought with it a number of legal and socio-economic issues, especially in developing nations such as Nigeria, which issues pose significant challenges to the legal regime of electronic commerce in those countries. This work examines these legal issues within the context of the current legal and regulatory framework for electronic commerce in Nigeria