points from midterm Flashcards
what is the non-intervention principle?
Intervention is a dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of another State for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things…” In this case, dictatorial means you are coercing a state to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do
what was the first legal treaty that prohibited war as an instrument of national policy?
the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928 which called upon signatories to settle disputes by peaceful means, it made war an illegal means of resolving international disputes
what are some examples of prohibited intervention?
premature recognition of governments/seceding states, financial support to rebels in non-international armed conflicts, election interference, propaganda (calls for regime change, revolution, secession, etc)
what constitutes force?
All military means and other types of direct force, indirect force like cyberattacks (physical non-armed force) and proxy wars. Expelling people is not considered force under law, same with economic coercion
what are the ius cogens?
these are peremptory norms, no state is bound by these and all states accept them: genocide, apartheid, slavery, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, norms in which no derogation (abolishing) is allowed
what is the most known exception to the prohibition on the use of force only applying to cross-border activities, and not to internal or domestic conflict?
The Nicaragua Case, because the US embarked on arming and training rebels which WAS use of indirect force against Nicaragua. However, they said sending merely money was NOT use of force, but is still a violation of non-intervention principle. The court also found that the actions of the Contras were not attributable to the US, as the US was not directing or telling them to do anything. Largely speaking, exceptions to this occur when states support rebel groups, or someone who supports their interests, or when states send irregulars or mercenaries who carry out armed force
what are the two schools of thought when it comes to the threat of force?
the broader notion is that all threats of force are prohibited, but the narrower (or generally accepted) notion is that only a threat aimed at leading to a specific reaction (you will destroy a country IF it doesn’t do what you want) is prohibited
what are some competences of the UN Security Council?
gives recommendations to GA, appoints the Secretary General, recommends new UN members, elects ICJ judges, maintains international peace and security, primarily a political organ
what is article 39 of the UN charter?
gives broad leeway to the security council, “humpty dumpty” school of interpretation (when I use a word, I get to choose what it means) gives them absolute license for taking action on anything or nothing (only limits are things that have jus cogens status). They are obligated to choose what is considered a “threat to peace” or act of aggression. This article also applies to interstate and intra-state conflicts, proliferation and arms control, terrorism, piracy, and conflict prevention
what is article 41 of the UN charter?
can decide what measures NOT involving armed force are to be taken based on their decisions (may include travel bans, sanctions, bans on telecommunication, etc but it is up to them). This article is not exhaustive (fully comprehensive)
what is article 42 of the UN charter?
if the non-force things aren’t enough to the security council, they CAN authorize force, which may include blockades and other operations by air, sea, or land. This is also not exhaustive, and in practice it has been used to authorize UN members to use force because articles 43-47 were never actually put into practice
when is the Webster formula applied when it comes to self defense?
preemptive (imminent threat( self defense: this formula is used to show there was a necessity for self defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
what is an example of preventive self defense?
US National Security Strategy of 2002, an imminent threat or attack was not happening
how did George W Bush justify the war in Iraq?
Self-defense against Saddam Hussein and through arguing that they cannot wait for a nuclear attack so they must act now. Then, the US National Security Strategy of 2002 said they must adapt the concept of imminent threats to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries (rogue states), argued that they have the right to attack preemptively even if something is not imminent
what was the High Level Panel report from 2004?
It rejected US National Security Strategy of 2002, said that to allow one attack is to allow all, rejected and did not allow the US claim of preemptive action
