scholarly journals The True Meaning of Force

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 141-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen O’Connell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Central Thesis ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
True Meaning

Tom Ruys’s article in the latest issue of the American Journal of International Law is an erudite study of the prohibition on the use of force in UN Charter Article 2(4). Ruys makes many points with which I wholeheartedly agree. In note 241, he says that the case for cross-border drone attacks by the United States “verges on stretching criteria for necessity, proportionality, and armed attack to the point of absurdity . . . .” He is also right to reject emerging claims that the defense of necessity provides a basis for the lawful resort to force. Indeed, there is much that is truly excellent about the article—just not, unfortunately, its central thesis.

The World Court and Jus Cogens

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon A. Christenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The World ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
United Nations Charter

In the merits phase of decision in the case brought by Nicaragua against the United States, the World Court briefly mentions references by states or publicists to the concept of jus cogens. These expressions are used to buttress the Court’s conclusion that the principle prohibiting the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is also a rule of customary international law.

scholarly journals UNITED STATES’ UNLAWFUL DRONE STRIKES AND DAMAGES CAUSED TO HUMANITY: A CASE STUDY OF PAKISTAN

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Imran ◽  
Rohaida Nordin ◽  
Mohd Munzil Muhamad
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Innocent People ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
International Laws

This paper contributes significantly through suggestions to overcome the problem created by the disastrous US drone strikes in Pakistan. This paper evaluates incidences of the United States’ combat drone strikes in Pakistan and the damage caused to innocent people. It seeks to determine possible violations of international laws and the extent to which these strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan. After the incident of 9/11, the use of combat drones in armed conflicts among states, non-state actors, disruptive groups and organisations has increased and expanded. Combat drones are controlled by operators who depend for their primary sources of information on cameras and sensors to determine their targets. Drone strikes lack identification processes causing many innocent people to be killed or injured. Drone strikes launched in non-conflict areas also increase the concerns about illegitimate interference in a state’s territorial sovereignty and violations of international laws. It covers the following questions. What are the basic principles about the use of force? What kinds of damages are caused by US drone strikes in Pakistan that violate basic human rights principles? What are the concerns of international organisations about drone strikes in Pakistan? Summarily, it covers the United States unlawful drone strikes in Pakistan and damages caused to humanity. The paper uses doctrinal qualitative analysis to situate the research within the ethical, legal and social parameters of the related statutes of international law. The research methodology adopted is evaluative, interpretive and analytical. The paper consists of 8 segments: (1) drones and the United States armed forces, (2) some basic international law principles about the use of force, (3) possible human rights violations, (4) US drone strikes diminish the sovereignty of Pakistan, (5) demands for transparency, (6) the damages caused to humanity by the drone strikes, (7) concerns of international organisations about illegitimate drone strikes causing extra judicial killings and (8) some recommendations to regulate the use of combat drones. It demonstrates that international law does not regulate the use of combat drones in armed conflict and no considerable effort has been made to bring the use of combat drones under the rule of law. Furthermore, US drone strikes in Pakistan’s territory have been done without consensus, resulting in the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and the killing of innocent people.

Evidence, the Court, and the Nicaragua Case

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Highet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Counter Measures ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
Multilateral Treaty

The decision in the Nicaragua case is one of the most important judgments ever delivered by the International Court. It is by far the “heaviest” case, in the parlance of the English barrister, ever decided by the Court in the absence of a party. It has broken new ground for the application of Article 53 of the Statute. It deals in detail with the multilateral treaty reservation of the United States (the “Vandenberg amendment”). It contains provocative reasoning about the genesis and maintenance of rules of customary international law, separate from treaties such as the United Nations Charter. It contains seminal findings on the use of force and the exercise of the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. It presents fresh and doubtless controversial interpretations of the principle of nonintervention. It prescribes limits to “collective counter-measures” in response to conduct not deemed to amount to “armed attacks.”

Once Upon a Time in Cyberspace: A Grim Reality about the Dangers of Cyberwarfare

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-96
Author(s):  
Gia Fernicola
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Armed Attack

Summary This Article addresses the issue of translating current international law norms and principles onto the borderless realm—cyberspace. This Article provides an overview of the United States’ and Russia’s approach to defend against a cyberattack. This Article concludes with an original, new test that resolves the discrepancies between all existing approaches to determine whether or not a cyber act is in fact an armed attack.

scholarly journals Terrorism, The use of Force and International Law After 11 September

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Military Action ◽  
The Us

The United States response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 was encouraging for those who worry about a tendency towards unilateralism on the part of the single super-power. The US deliberately engaged a number of international organisations and built an extensive coalition of supporting States before engaging in military action.

Part 1 The Cold War Era (1945–89), 32 The Intervention of the United States and other Eastern Caribbean States in Grenada—1983

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hajjami Nabil
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Caribbean Community ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Eastern Caribbean ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter examines the legality of the 1983 American-led intervention in Grenada. It recalls the positions of the main protagonists of the crisis, including international organisations such as the United Nations, the Caribbean Community and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. It then analyses the justifications of the American administration, which are mainly based on three different grounds: the protection of citizens abroad; the activation of regional mechanisms and the intervention by invitation. The conclusion assesses the precedential value of the Operation Urgent Fury. Regarding its wide condemnation, the chapter argues that reactions to the American-led intervention in Grenada can finally be deemed as a strong reaffirmation of the prohibition of the use of force in international law.

What Happens Now? The United Nations After Iraq

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 607-620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Cultural Myth ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Self Interest

Thirty-three years ago I published an article in this Journal entitled Who Killed Article 2 (4)? or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States, which examined the phenomenon of increasingly frequent resort to unlawful force by Britain, France, India, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The essay concluded with this sad observation:The failure of the U.N. Charter's normative system is tantamount to the inability of any rule, such as that set out in Article 2(4), in itself to have much control over the behavior of states. National self-interest, particularly the national self-interest of the super- Powers, has usually won out over treaty obligations. This is particularly characteristic of this age of pragmatic power politics. It is as if international law, always something of a cultural myth, has been demythologized. It seems this is not an age when men act by principles simply because that is what gentlemen ought to do. But living by power alone ... is a nerve-wracking and costly business.

scholarly journals International Law and the War in Iraq

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Yoo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
President Bush

In his speech before the United Nations (UN) in September 2002, President George W. Bush characterized the possible use of force against Iraq as necessary to enforce existing Security Council resolutions and to eliminate a dangerous threat to international peace and security. The Security Council responded by adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq to be in material breach of previous Security Council resolutions and threatened serious consequences for further intransigence. When Iraq refused to fully comply with these resolutions, the United States led an ad hoc “coalition of the willing” that invaded Iraq on March 19,2003, quickly defeated Iraq’s armed forces, and ended the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath party. On May 1,2003, President Bush announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. At the time of this writing, the United States has assumed the position of an occupying power that is responsible for rebuilding Iraq, as recognized by the Security Council in Resolution 1483.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document