The Threat of the Use of Force and Ultimata

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Lagerwall ◽  
François Dubuisson
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The Us

This chapter deals with international law governing the threat of force. More specifically, it discusses the conditions under which an act may be considered a threat of force contrary to the UN Charter. It shows that a threat is unlawful under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter when the use of force contemplated by the threat would itself be unlawful. The chapter also examines the application of the rule prohibiting the threat of force by focusing on three cases: the US and British threats of force against Iraq in 2002 and 2003; the dispute between Suriname and Guyana in 2007; and the conflict involving Russia and Georgia in 2009.

scholarly journals The Use of Force in International Law

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Written Text ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Extensive Coverage ◽  
The Us ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Complex Question ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

The international law on the use of force is one of the oldest branches of international law. It is an area twinned with the emergence of international law as a concept in itself, and which sees law and politics collide. The number of armed conflicts is equal only to the number of methodological approaches used to describe them. Many violent encounters are well known. The Kosovo Crisis in 1999 and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 spring easily to the minds of most scholars and academics, and gain extensive coverage in this text. Other conflicts, including the Belgian operation in Stanleyville, and the Ethiopian Intervention in Somalia, are often overlooked to our peril. Ruys and Corten's expert-written text compares over sixty different instances of the use of cross border force since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, from all out warfare to hostile encounters between individual units, targeted killings, and hostage rescue operations, to ask a complex question. How much authority does the power of precedent really have in the law of the use of force?

12. War and law in the twenty-first century

2021 ◽  
pp. 267-286
Author(s):  
Nicole Scicluna
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
First Century ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
The Us ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Right

This chapter explicates the various ways in which contemporary warfare challenges post-1945 international law on the use of force and the conduct of war. It begins by exploring the rules governing the use of force against non-state actors. This is one of the most pressing issues of the war on terror, much of which has involved military operations against terrorist groups operating from the territory of states that cannot or will not suppress their activities. In particular, campaigns by the US and several other states against ISIS in Syria have seriously undermined the international law framework governing self-defence and the right of states to have their sovereignty and territorial integrity respected. The chapter then looks at another trademark policy of the war on terror: the use of targeted killings, often carried out by unmanned drones, to eliminate suspected terrorists. It also considers a new type of warfare altogether: the emerging phenomenon of cyber warfare, which, too, has implications for both jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

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), 36 The US Intervention in Panama—1989

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsagourias Nicholas
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Panama Canal ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Government ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Us Intervention

This chapter examines the legality of the 1989 US intervention in Panama and assesses its impact on the use of force regime. After recalling the facts of the incident, it goes on to analyse the legal arguments provided by the US government to justify its action. More specifically, the US invoked its right to protect American citizens abroad as part of its right to self-defence; the right to intervene to protect the Panama Canal provided by the Panama Canal Treaties; and the invitation of the democratically elected Leader of the Opposition. The chapter then presents the reactions of states and the views of legal commentators. It concludes by saying that the incident affirms existing law but also contributes to the development of the rules regulating the use of force in international law.

scholarly journals Humanitarian Intervention: Fairy Tale about One Swallow Which Made Summer?

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-154
Author(s):  
Ondřej Svaček
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Fairy Tale ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Peremptory Norm ◽  
The Uk

Summary In its final report on aggression and the use of force, the International Law Association opined that the only way in which unilateral humanitarian intervention could possibly be seen as a legal exception to the prohibition of the use of force is if State practice and opinio juris were to be found establishing its status as an additional exception in customary international law. After the airstrikes conducted by the US, the UK, and France against Syria in April 2018, which took place in reaction to unprecedented usage of chemical weapons against civilian population by regime of Bashar Asad, some States and part of scholars argued that this permissive rule (exception) has already crystalized and humanitarian intervention became part of international law. The aim of this article is to assess whether these opinions are relevant or whether they are simply premature. The text is divided into three parts. Firstly, legality of humanitarian intervention is considered in the framework of the UN Charter and customary international law on the use of force based on evaluation of scholarly debates and the most prominent examples of State practice before 2018. Then, the article describes methodology that is employed in relation to the creation (modification) of customary international law in general and peremptory norm concerning the prohibition on the use of force in particular. This part analyzes how possible normative changes of jus ad bellum should be assessed. The third part evaluates justifications and reactions of States with respect to the use of force against Syria in April 2018 that were presented by the international community of States. The article concludes that the concept of humanitarian intervention remains still illegal even after the airstrikes against Syria from 2018, what conforms to the prevailing opinion presented in contemporary scholarly literature. Even though the positive echoes identified in State practice (and doctrine) are yet premature, they indicate that process of gradual normative change has already been triggered. At the same time, the expectations concerning crystallization of a new possible exception to the general prohibition on the use of force should not be too exaggerated.

The Implications of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction for the Prohibition of the Use of Force

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Joyner
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Weapons Of Mass Destruction ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Regional Conflicts ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) between states and non-state actors and its implications for international law governing the use of force. It considers whether WMD proliferation and changes in security realities have brought a crisis in international law on the use of force and discusses the use of pre-emptive force for preventing states and non-state actors ‘of concern’ from developing and using WMD. It analyses the shift in the policy positions of the US and other relatively powerful states, from more multilateral and diplomacy-based ‘non-proliferation’ to increased emphasis on proactive and often unilateral or small-coalition-based ‘counterproliferation’. It looks at concerns that several states will be emboldened to apply the doctrine of counterproliferation-oriented pre-emption to their regional conflicts. Finally, it evaluates proposals to reform the provisions and procedures of the UN Charter system for regulating the use of force, including the law on self-defence.

The International Court of Justice and the ‘Principle of Non-Use of Force’

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clause Kreß
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Palestinian Territory ◽  
Legal Consequences

This chapter examines how the ICJ has interpreted UN Charter provisions on use of force in international relations. It outlines ICJ jurisprudence covering use of force by focusing on prohibition of use of force, exceptions to that prohibition, and prohibition of the threat of force. It cites cases from Corfu Channel (1949) to Nicaragua (1986); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996); Case Concerning Oil Platforms (2003) pitting Iran against the US; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004); and Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (2005). The chapter opines that the Court was remarkably successful in clarifying the law and influencing state practice according to its interpretations. Finally it suggests that the ICJ should avoid too much prohibitive rigour in clarifying the important remaining grey areas of the international law on the use of force.

scholarly journals Obama’s Dual Discourse on American Exceptionalism

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (73) ◽  
pp. 25-56
Author(s):  
Miloš Hrnjaz ◽  
Milan Krstić
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Law ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Hard Power ◽  
The Us

Abstract This paper analyses the highly contested concept of American exceptionalism, as described in the speeches of Barak Obama. The authors of the paper use discourse analysis to show that Obama is using the idea of American exceptionalism on two levels: US foreign policy and the US stance towards international law. Our conclusion is that Obama uses an implicit dual discourse in both these fields. Obama favours active US foreign policy, based on soft power instruments and multilateralism. He insists that American exceptionalism does not mean that the US can exempt itself from the norms of international law, however, he does not think the US should always have a very active foreign policy. He makes room for unilateral acting and the use of hard power instruments in foreign policy. He allows for the use of force even if is not in accordance with the norms of international law, when US national interests are threatened.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document