Self-defence in international law

Last updated

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."

Contents

Overview

Charter of the United Nations

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.

—  Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

The drafters’ intent was that collective force approved and organized by the Security Council would substitute for unilateral uses of force by states. [1] However, some states were concerned that use of the veto power by one of the Council's permanent members might prevent that body from taking necessary action, and they insisted upon inserting into the Charter an explicit right of self defense. [2]

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

—  Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter

International law recognizes a right of self-defence according to the Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter, [3] as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). [4] Another view is that Article 51 acknowledges the previously existing customary international law right and then proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted, as in the Caroline case noted below. [5] Not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in Nicaragua Case , what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.

Customary international law and Caroline test

The traditional customary rules on preemptive self-defense derive from an early diplomatic incident between the United States and the United Kingdom over the killing of two US citizens who were on board a ship (the Caroline), which was docked in the U.S. but which had been carrying personnel and stores of war to rebels in Canada, then a British colony. The U.S. government had not approved or supported the Caroline's activities and the ship was peacefully at anchor in the U.S. when British forces attacked, burned the ship and sent it over Niagara Falls. The so-called Caroline case established that in order for one state to use force in the territory of another state which had not used force first there had to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it." These statements by the US Secretary of State to the British authorities are accepted as an accurate description of the customary right of preemptive, or anticipatory, self-defense. [6] They are sometimes mistakenly said to apply to all uses of force by states in self-defense. [7]

Imminent threat

As noted above, imminent threat is a standard criterion in international law, developed by Daniel Webster as he litigated the Caroline affair. The threat must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". These criteria are used in the international law justification of preemptive self-defense : self-defense without being physically attacked first (see Caroline test). This concept has been used to mitigate the lack of definition provided by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that sovereign nations may fend off an armed attack until the Security Council has adopted measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

The Caroline affair has been used to establish the principle of "anticipatory self-defense" and is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around preemptive strike (or preemption doctrine).

See also

Domestic law issues related to self-defense

Related Research Articles

<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">Charter of the United Nations</span> 1945 foundational treaty of the United Nations

The Charter of the United Nations (UN) is the foundational treaty of the United Nations. It establishes the purposes, governing structure, and overall framework of the UN system, including its six principal organs: the Secretariat, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Trusteeship Council.

The right of self-defense is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.

The legitimacy under international law of the 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been questioned. The UN Charter is the foundational legal document of the United Nations (UN) and is the cornerstone of the public international law governing the use of force between States. NATO members are also subject to the North Atlantic Treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Declaration of war</span> Formal act by which one state announces war against another

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another. The declaration is a performative speech act by an authorized party of a national government, in order to create a state of war between two or more states.

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.

Jus ad bellum, literally "right to war" in Latin, refers to "the conditions under which States may resort to war or to the use of armed force in general". This is distinct from the set of rules that ought to be followed during a war, known as jus in bello, which govern the behavior of parties in an armed conflict.

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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War of aggression</span> Military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation, in contrast with the concept of a just war.

A defensive war is one of the causes that justify war by the criteria of the Just War tradition. It means a war where at least one nation is mainly trying to defend itself from another, as opposed to a war where both sides are trying to invade and conquer each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of the Iraq War</span>

The U.S. rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States. Putting this controversy aside, both proponents and opponents of the invasion have also criticized the prosecution of the war effort along a number of lines. Most significantly, critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs.

A non-state actor (NSA) is an individual or organization that has significant political influence but is not allied to any particular country or state.

The Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement was created to reduce the danger of nuclear war between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The agreement was signed at the Washington Summit, on June 22, 1973. The United States and the U.S.S.R. agreed to reduce the threat of a nuclear war and establish a policy to restrain hostility.

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.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. It allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Security Treaty between the United States and Japan</span> 1952 treaty establishing a constant US military presence in Japan

The Security Treaty between the United States and Japan was a treaty signed on 8 September 1951 in San Francisco, California by representatives of the United States and Japan, in conjunction with the Treaty of San Francisco that ended World War II in Asia. The treaty was imposed on Japan by the United States as a condition for ending the Occupation of Japan and restoring Japan's sovereignty as a nation. It had the effect of establishing a long-lasting military alliance between the United States and Japan.

Chapter I of the United Nations Charter lays out the purposes and principles of the United Nations organization. These principles include the equality and self-determination of nations, respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the obligation of member countries to obey the Charter, to cooperate with the UN Security Council and to use peaceful means to resolve conflicts. These "purposes and principles" reflect a premise that the effectiveness of the United Nations would be enhanced with broad guidelines to guide the actions of its Organisations and member states. However, some members were concerned that these proposals granted what they considered overly broad discretionary powers for the organs of the United Nations in the Dumbarton Oaks Conference proposals. And the adopted purposes and principles have been seen as reflecting the compromise achieved.

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.

Schmitt analysis is a legal framework developed in 1999 by Michael N. Schmitt, leading author of the Tallinn Manual, for deciding if a state's involvement in a cyber-attack constitutes a use of force. Such a framework is important as part of international law's adaptation process to the growing threat of cyber-warfare. The characteristics of a cyber-attack can determine which legal regime will govern state behavior, and the Schmitt analysis is one of the most commonly used ways of analyzing those characteristics. It can also be used as a basis for training professionals in the legal field to deal with cyberwarfare.

References

Sources
Notes
  1. ↑ Randelzhofer, Article 2(4) inThe Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994).
  2. ↑ Kearley, Regulation of Preventive and Preemptive Force in the United Nations Charter: A Search for Original Intent,Wyoming Law Review, vol. 3, p. 663 (2003).
  3. ↑ Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter
  4. ↑ Randelzhofer, Article 2(4) inThe Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994).
  5. ↑ Meng, The Caroline inEncyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 1, p.538, and Bowett, Self-Defense in International Law, p.59 (1958).
  6. ↑ (Dan Webster, Yale Law School)
  7. ↑ Kearley, Raising the "Caroline"Wisconsin International Law Journal vol.17, p.325 (1994).


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.