英语论文网

ant to mention briefly the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law which elaborates upon Article 2(4) and outlaws wars of aggression thereby placing a responsibility for them under international law. Secondly, states must not threaten or resort to force in violation of international frontiers or to solve international disputes. States are also under a duty to refrain from armed reprisals and they must also not deprive people of their right of independence and self-determination. States are also under a duty to refrain from political, military or economic coercions aimed against political independence and territorial sovereignty of other states. Lastly, states must also refrain from organising, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorists acts in another state. [5] Now we know that international law posits a general prohibition on the use of force; in order for use of force to be legitimate it must fall under one of the accepted exceptions. These are the enforcement actions mandated by the United Nations Security Council and a right to self-defence. We shall inspect each of these heads by analysing the examples both under customary law and the UN Charter.

The right of self-defence

The first pertinent mention of the right of self-defence in customary international law came in the Caroline affair. [6] In 1837, British subjects destroyed a vessel docked in an American port. The vessel was being used transporting American nationals to aid the Canadian Rebellion. The US Secretary of State Daniel Webster laid down the essentials of self-defence in a series of letters exchanged with British authorities. [7] The need to resort to self-defence must be 'instant', 'overwhelming', 'immediate' and when there is no viable alternative action possible. Another extremely important concept emerging out of these letters was the issue of proportionality i.e. the response must not be excessive or unreasonable, 'since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it'. [8] The relevant United Nations provision is Article 51 of the UN Charter. The ICJ decided in Nicaragua case that the right of self-defence exists as an inherent right both under customary law and the UN Charter. [9]

A state has to demonstrate that it has been targeted by an armed attack and it bears the burden of proof for it to rely on the right of self-defence. In general there are three kinds of self-defence, anticipatory, pre-emptive and preventive. Christian Henderson describes them as “not terms of art” but having differing meanings. [10] According to Henderson, anticipatory self-defence is immediate, taken in response to a threat, where the armed attack has not yet taken place but is “imminent”. This type of self-defence is deemed legitimate because Article 51 mentions the concept of “imminence”; the main issue being the scope of “imminence”. Pre-emptive self-defence refers to action taken against perceived threat of “temporally remote nature”. [11] Perhaps, this remains the most debated and controversial issue in contemporary law of use of force along with humanitarian intervention. Lastly, Henderson describes preventive self-defence as a general hybrid term which refers to either anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence.

Israel’s lightening strikes against Egypt and later Jordan