Military assistance on request and the use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
James A Green
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Assistance

3 Direct Military Assistance on Request During Civil Wars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Erika
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Organizational Practice ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Current State ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines whether the right to self-determination in international law prevents military intervention on the side of the recognized government during a civil war. Post-Cold War state and organizational practice does not convincingly support the claim that direct military assistance at the request of a recognized government is prohibited during a civil war, otherwise known as a ‘non-international armed conflict’ (NIAC). Attempts to explain current state practice by means of counter-terrorism and counter-intervention exceptions to a general prohibition of such assistance also is not grounded in state or organizational practice, nor are such exceptions viable in practice. Instead, state and organizational practice seems to confirm the right of recognized governments to request military assistance from third states, also during civil wars/NIACs, as long as they retain their recognized, de jure status. The potential lack of ‘representativeness’ in such a situation does not seem to limit the extent to which the de jure government can act on behalf of the state (and its people) in matters pertaining to the use of force.

The Lawfulness of Military Assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Norton Moore
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Viet Nam ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Collective Defense ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The major thrust of contemporary international law is to restrict coercion in international relations as a modality of major change. The use of force as an instrument of change has always been wasteful, disruptive, and tragic. In the nuclear era the renunciation of force as a method of settlement of disputes has become an imperative. These necessities have resulted in a widely accepted distinction between lawful and unlawful uses of force in international relations which is embodied in the United Nations Charter. Force pursuant to the right of individual or collective defense or expressly authorized by the centralized peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations is lawful. Essentially all other major uses of force in international relations are unlawful. These fundamental proscriptions are designed to protect self-determination of the peoples of the world and to achieve at least minimum world public order. As such, they reflect the basic expectations of the international community. Since they are aimed at prohibiting the unilateral use of force as a modality of major change, they have consistently authorized the use of force in individual or collective defense at least “until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” This defensive right is, at least at the present level of effectiveness of international peacekeeping machinery, necessary to the prevention of unilateral use of force as an instrument of change. The fundamental distinction between unlawful unilateral force to achieve major change and lawful force in individual or collective defense against such coercion is the structural steel for assessment of the lawfulness of the present military assistance to the Republic of Viet-Nam.

Military Assistance on Request and the Use of Force

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
De Wet Erika
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Definition Of

The book examines if and to what extent the proliferation of direct military assistance on the request of a recognized government is changing the rules regulating the use of force. Since the end of the Cold War, several (sub)regional organizations in Africa have codified military assistance on request in their respective treaty frameworks. In addition, in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, internationally recognized governments embroiled in protracted armed conflicts have requested direct military assistance from individual states or groups of states. These requests are often accepted by the other states and at times the United Nations Security Council, even when the requesting governments have very limited effective control over their territories, lack democratic legitimacy and are engaged in wide-spread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.This book departs from a definition of requested military assistance that refers to the exercise of forcible measures by third-state armed forces or those controlled by an international organization in the territory of the requesting state. It then examines the authority to issue a request for (or consent to) direct military assistance, as well as the type of situations in which such assistance may be requested—notably whether it can be requested during an armed conflict. De Wet finishes by examining the important and controversial question of whether and to what extent the proliferation of forcible assistance on request is changing the legal framework applying to the use of force in international law.

scholarly journals Minsk Agreements: On the Verge of Disruption

2021 ◽  
pp. 31-42
Author(s):  
E. Solov’ev
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
International Security ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Total System ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
International Crisis ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
The Us ◽  
Military Campaign

The rather one-sided interpretation by the US and EU countries of the essence of the Minsk Agreements as the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, which was particularly evident in 2021, and the growing military assistance to Kiev from the US and a number of Western countries led to a tightening of the position of the Zelensky administration regarding prospects of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements and demands of their open revision. And the example of Azerbaijan's successful military campaign in Nagorno-Karabakh in the context of the modernization of the Ukrainian military forces has put on the agenda the question of a possibility and success of the use of force scenarios in the process of restoring territorial integrity of the country. The situation around Donbass is gradually turning into a large scale international crisis with potentially extremely destabilizing consequences for the entire international security system. As a result, Ukraine, under the leadership of a populist president, appeared on the verge of war, also capable of acting as a detonator of a serious aggravation in the total system of international relations.

The Venezuela Crisis 2019: Use of Lethal Force and Action Short of Force

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 273-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen O'Connell
Keyword(s):  
News Media ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Second Category ◽  
Taking Action ◽  
Dangerous Level

These comments briefly address two international legal issues of concern in the Venezuela crisis: the legality of any party resorting to lethal force or taking action short of lethal force. Turmoil in Venezuela moved to a new, more dangerous level, when in January 2019 the leader of the parliament, Juan Guaidó, claimed to be the legitimate president in place of the incumbent, Nicolás Maduro. A variety of parties have taken and have threatened to take action in the wake of Guaidó’s claim. The news media has reported on three categories of action short of lethal force, including economic sanctions, military assistance, and humanitarian assistance. In the second category, lethal force, two examples are most relevant, the use of force against protesters and others not organized to use armed force, and the use of force by, on behalf of, and against groups that are organized to fight.

scholarly journals Reinterpreting Exceptions to the Use of Force in the Interest of Security: Forcible Intervention by Invitation and the Demise of the Negative Equality Principle

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 307-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Military Assistance ◽  
Civil Conflicts ◽  
Territorial State ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Right ◽  
United Nations Charter

This essay describes tensions that arise between two types of public goods enshrined in the United Nations Charter—the right to self-determination of people(s) within a territorial state and peace and security—in situations in which recognized governments in conflict-torn countries request military assistance from third states against opposition groups. It illuminates legal challenges in reconciling these public goods in practice, at a time when collective peacekeeping mechanisms appear unable to prevent or terminate civil conflicts and their destabilizing regional impact.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document