Caroline test

Last updated

The Caroline test is a 19th-century formulation of customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, which said that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The test takes its name from the Caroline affair.

Contents

Historical background

In 1837, settlers in Upper Canada revolted due to dissatisfaction with the British administration in North America. The United States remained officially neutral about the rebellion, but American sympathizers assisted the rebels with men and supplies, transported by a steamboat named the Caroline. In response, a combined Anglo-Canadian force from Canada entered United States territory at night, seized the Caroline, set the ship on fire, and sent it over Niagara Falls. An American watchmaker, Amos Durfee, was accidentally killed by Alexander Macleod, a Canadian sheriff. [1] The British claimed that the attack was an act of self-defense. In a letter to the British Ambassador, Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that a self-defense claimant would have to show that the:

necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation ..., and that the British force, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it. [2]

Requirements

The terms "anticipatory self-defense", "preemptive self-defense" and "preemption" traditionally refers to a state's right to strike first in self-defense when faced with imminent attack. [3] In order to justify such an action, the Caroline test has two distinct requirements:

  1. The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option (necessity);
  2. The response must be proportionate to the threat (proportionality). [4]

In Webster's original formulation, the necessity criterion is described as "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation". This has later come to be referred to as "instant and overwhelming necessity". [5] [6]

Significance

The principle of self-defense had been acknowledged prior to the Caroline test, but it was notable for setting out specific criteria by which it could be determined whether there had been a legitimate exercise of that right. [7] The test was accepted by the United Kingdom and came to be accepted as part of customary international law. [7]

The threat or use of force is prohibited by customary international law and the UN Charter when it is part of a preventive war waged against the territory of any State. In the Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice decided, "the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State." [8] The Caroline test was recognized and endorsed by the Nuremberg Tribunal, who adopted the same words used in the test in judging Germany's invasion of Norway and Denmark during World War II. [9]

The right of self-defense is permitted, when the conditions of customary international law regarding necessity and proportionality are met. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The Caroline test applies in cases where Article 51 is not a permissive rule because a defensive action was taken before an armed attack occurred. [6]

To this day, the Caroline test is considered the customary law standard in determining the legitimacy of self-defense action. [10] In 2008, Thomas Nichols wrote:

Thus the destruction of an insignificant ship in what one scholar has called a 'comic opera affair' in the early 19th century nonetheless led to the establishment of a principle of international life that would govern, at least in theory, the use of force for over 250 years [sic]. [1]

Possible examples

The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Six-Day War, and the attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor are considered the closest situations in which the Caroline test would have been applicable. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crime</span> Individual act constituting a violation of the laws of war

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq disarmament crisis</span> Early 2000s diplomatic crisis

The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of the primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Counterterrorism</span> Activity to defend against or prevent terrorist actions

Counterterrorism, also known as anti-terrorism, relates to the practices, military tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, law enforcement, businesses, and intelligence agencies use to combat or eliminate terrorism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Just war theory</span> Doctrine about when a war is ethically just

The just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. The just war theory presents a justfiable means of war with justice being an objective of armed conflict. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

<i>Caroline</i> affair 1837-42 diplomatic crisis between the US, UK, and Canadian rebels

The Caroline affair was an international incident involving the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Canadas which started in 1837 and lasted until 1842. While ultimately a minor historical event, it eventually acquired substantial international legal significance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Invasion</span> Type of military offensive where armed forces of one geopolitical entity forcibly enter another

An invasion is a military offensive of combatants of one geopolitical entity, usually in large numbers, entering territory controlled by another similar entity, often involving acts of aggression. Generally, invasions have objectives of conquering, liberating or reestablishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution. Not every military offense with the goal to capture territory or remove a government is an invasion.

The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers". It comes from the 15th century Latin "militare" meaning "to serve as a soldier". The related modern concept of the militia as a defensive organization against invaders grew out of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. In times of crisis, the militiaman left his civilian duties and became a soldier until the emergency was over, when he returned to his civilian occupation.

A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war shortly before that attack materializes. It is a war that preemptively 'breaks the peace' before an impending attack occurs.

A preventive war is an armed conflict "initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk." The party which is being attacked has a latent threat capability or it has shown that it intends to attack in the future, based on its past actions and posturing. A preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has had a chance to shift in the favor of the targeted party. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive strike, which is the first strike when an attack is imminent. Preventive uses of force "seek to stop another state. .. from developing a military capability before it becomes threatening or to hobble or destroy it thereafter, whereas [p]reemptive uses of force come against a backdrop of tactical intelligence or warning indicating imminent military action by an adversary."

Hugo Grotius, the 17th-century jurist and father of public international law, stated in his 1625 magnum opus The Law of War and Peace that "Most Men assign three Just Causes of War, Defence, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment."

Opinio juris sive necessitatis or simply opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation. This is in contrast to an action resulting from cognitive reaction or behaviors habitual to an individual. This term is frequently used in legal proceedings such as a defense for a case.

The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Operation Opera, also known as Operation Babylon, was a surprise airstrike conducted by the Israeli Air Force on 7 June 1981, which destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor located 17 kilometres southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. The Israeli operation came a year after the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force had caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility in Operation Scorch Sword, with the damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians. Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it, established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was not an anomaly, but instead "a precedent for every future government in Israel". Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another dimension to its existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it related to the nuclear weapons capability of other states in the region.

Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several separate concepts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War and environmental law</span>

War can heavily damage the environment, and warring countries often place operational requirements ahead of environmental concerns for the duration of the war. Some international law is designed to limit this environmental harm.

Shock and awe is a military strategy based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy their will to fight. Though the concept has a variety of historical precedents, the doctrine was explained by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and was developed specifically for application by the US military by the National Defense University of the United States.

Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.

Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal under international law. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations. In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers.

Human shields are legally protected persons—either protected civilians or prisoners of war—who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target. The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations."

References

  1. 1 2 Nichols, Thomas (2008). The Coming Age of Preventive War. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 2. ISBN   978-0-8122-4066-5
  2. ↑ Webster, Daniel. 'Letter to Henry Stephen Fox', in K.E Shewmaker (ed.). The Papers of Daniel Webster: Diplomatic Papers, vol. 1. 1841-1843 (1983) 62. Dartmouth College Press. ISBN   978-0-87451-245-8
  3. ↑ Charles Pierson (2004). "Preemptive Self-Defense in an Age of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Operation Iraqi Freedom". Denver Journal of International Law and Policy. 33 (1). University of Denver.
  4. ↑ The Legal War: A Justification for Military Action in Iraq, Gonzaga Journal of International Law, archived from the original on 2010-01-16
  5. ↑ May, Larry (2007). War Crimes and Just War. Cambridge University Press. p. 206. ISBN   978-0-521-69153-6
  6. 1 2 Kirgis, Frederic L. (June 2002). "Pre-emptive Action to Forestall Terrorism". American Society of International Law. Archived from the original on 7 July 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2010.
  7. 1 2 O'Brien, John (2002). International law. Cavendish Publishing Limited. p. 682. ISBN   978-1-85941-630-3 Extract
  8. ↑ Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927) Archived 2013-09-27 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ↑ Olaoluwa, Olusanya (2006). Identifying the Aggressor Under International Law: A Principles Approach. Peter Lang Pub Inc. p. 105. ISBN   978-3-03910-741-4
  10. ↑ Duffy, Helen (2005). The 'War on Terror' and the Framework of International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 157. ISBN   978-0-521-54735-2
  11. ↑ Arend, Anthony Clark (Spring 2003). "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force" (PDF). The Washington Quarterly. 26 (2): 89–103. doi:10.1162/01636600360569711. S2CID   108581310.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.