8- Use of Force Flashcards
when is the use of force allowed in IL?
1) self-defense (justified by necessity and proportionality)
2) authorization by UNSC
paradox of jus ad bellum
Modern IL wants to eliminate war, but it also regulates and legitimates certain wars.
saint augustine on wars
War is justifiable when it’s used to punish wrongdoers WHO refuse to make amends.
thomas acquinas on wars (3)
wars are just only if they’re
- authorized by rightful authority (sovereign)
- fought for a just cause (in response to wrongdoing)
- fought with the right intentions
why is the rise of the westphalian system associated with the decline of JUST WAR TRADITION
States became their own “judges” in decisions to go to war- they’re sovereign, there’s no higher authority.
Instead, law focused on regulating the legal framework within which war took place
describe rules on the use of force in interwar years
The league of nations didn’t make war illegal, rather it allowed countries to submit disputes, and provided a “cooling off” period before war could be declared.
did league of nations make war illegal
NO
describe the right to self defense acc to the UN
countries have the right to defend themselves against an armed attack until the UNSC takes necessary measures, but they should inform the UNSC.
1970 Declaration on the Principles of IL (4)
1) Wars of aggression are considered a crime against peace.
2) States should refrain from using or threatening to use force to violate established boundaries or resolve international disputes.
3). It is prohibited for states to employ force to deny people their right to self-determination and independence.
4). States should not support or incite civil strife, terrorism, or armed groups within the territories of other states.
Nicaragua VS United States
according to the ICJ the right to self defense is only applicable in certain situations
When a country is attacked by armed groups instead of another country, the right to self-defense may not be applicable.
In the USA v. Nicaragua case, ICJ determined that the US’ military intervention in Nicaragua was not self-defense. This is because it wasn’t a response to an armed attack by Nicaragua but rather support for non-state armed groups. Therefore, the right to self-defense did not apply.
The Caroline Test
1) Necessity: the threat must be imminent meaning it’s about to happen, and peaceful solutions aren’t an option.
2) Proportionality: the response must be proportionate to the threat, meaning that the military action taken shouldn’t be more than what’s necessary to neutralize the threat.
Self-Defense of Citizens and Property
was accepted in the 19th century, but the current legal positon is controversial.
-> t’s generally agreed that a country cannot use self-defense to protect its property abroad
what’s collective self defense
several states come together to defend themselves against a common enemy.
is collective self defense legal?
A state cannot simply invoke collective self-defense on its own behalf **without being attacked first. **
For it to be legal:
1) the state needs to be a victim of an armed attack
2) then, one state needs to request assistance from other states to defend itslef
true or false -> The UNSC is authorized to take measures to address threats to international peace and security.
TRUE
-> Can use economic or diplomatic sanctions, and military force if the other’s were proved to be inadequate. However, the use of force should consider necessity and urgency!
historical examples of UNSC use of force
1950: Korea
When NK ignored the call to withdraw its forces, the UNSC recommended that member states provide military assistance to SK.
1990: Kuwait
Condemned Iraq’s actions, when Iraq refused to comply the UNSC authorized member states to use force.
2011: Libya
The Libyan government was engaged in a violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests, which had erupted in the wake of the Arab Spring, and the UNSC launched a military intervention.
define humanitarian intervention
the use of military force by external actors to protect people from severe HR abuses or prevent mass atrocities.
how do people defend humanitarian intervention?
humanitarian intervention allows for the effective protection of HR in line with the aspirations of the UN Charter.
how do people critique humanitarian intervention?
humanitarian intervention is merely an excuse by Western states to intervene militarily against non-Westerns states.
describe yugoslavia case
NATO countries sought UNSC permission to intervene in Yugoslavia to stop ethnic cleansing, but Russia and China threatened to veto the resolution.
Despite lacking official UNSC approval, NATO decided to intervene militarily, justifying it as “necessary to preserve regional stability and end the humanitarian crisis”
Legitimacy of Intervention in Yugoslavia
1) The Independent Intl Commission on Kosovo -> illegal but justified
2) The Intl Commission on Intervention and Sovereignty -> states can intervene for humanitarian reasons if: the harm is serious, the motivation is good, and the intervention is proportional, and the last resort.
