Blockades and Interdictions

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the rules and principles that govern a naval or aerial blockade or some other form of interference with foreign vessels and aircraft in the absence of an explicit authorization by the UN Security Council. After clarifying the concept of blockade under the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello, it considers blockades authorized as military enforcement measures. It also discusses some unresolved or even contested issues regarding the legality of blockades, with reference to blockades in situations other than international armed conflict and the principle of proportionality in relation to humanity. The scope of interdiction operations and its legal bases under international treaties are analysed next, together with maritime interdiction operations and the applicability of prize law during non-international armed conflicts. Finally, the chapter explores the right of individual or collective self-defence as a basis for interdiction operations.

33. Use or threat of force by states

2019 ◽  
pp. 717-748
Author(s):  
James Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses international law governing the use or threat of force by states. The UN Security Council has primary responsibility for enforcement action to deal with breaches of the peace, threats to the peace, or acts of aggression. Individual member states have the right of individual or collective self-defence, but only ‘until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security’. However, the practice has evolved of authorizing peacekeeping operations that are contingent upon the consent of the state whose territory is the site of the operations.

13. The international regulation of the use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 251-272
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the regulation of when and for what purpose a state may use force against another state jus ad bellum. It provides an overview of the legal framework in the 1945 UN Charter. It analyses the content of the prohibition on the use of force in article 2(4) of the Charter; discusses the competences of the UN Security Council; and examines the right to self-defence. The Security Council is entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council may authorize the use of force if required to maintain and/or restore the peace. Article 51 of the Charter allows a state to defend itself in the case of armed attack.

13. The international regulation of the use of force

2019 ◽  
pp. 254-278
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the regulation of when and for what purpose a state may use force against another state—jus ad bellum. It provides an overview of the legal framework in the 1945 UN Charter. It analyses the content of the prohibition on the use of force in article 2(4) of the Charter; discusses the competences of the UN Security Council; and examines the right to self-defence. The Security Council is entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council may authorize the use of force if required to maintain and/or restore the peace. Article 51 of the Charter allows a state to defend itself in the case of armed attack.

Theatre of Operations

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Christophe Martin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Cyber Warfare ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Right

This chapter explores ‘theatre of operations’ as a legal concept in international law, with emphasis on the geographical extent—‘boundaries of the battlefield’—of the use of force by belligerents. It addresses the meaning of ‘theatre of operations’ by considering two legal issues: the right of parties to an armed conflict to conduct military operations and the applicable law to armed operations carried out beyond the borders of a state. It examines the notion of the area of war in the context of jus in bello, jus ad bellum, and actions taken by the UN Security Council in response to armed conflicts, with reference to security and exclusion zones. It identifies ‘protected zones’ in which military operations are excluded based on the international law of armed conflicts and looks at issues raised by cyber warfare pertaining to the applicability of classic provisions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Self-Defence and Collective Security

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sir Michael Wood
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
Academic Debate

This chapter examines the distinction between self-defence and collective security, the two principal exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force in international law. The exercise of the right of self-defence, which includes collective self-defence, is recognized by Article 51 of the UN Charter, while collective security measures are authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. Drawing on an article by Derek Bowett published in 1994, the chapter considers the academic debate and confusion in 1990–1 concerning the distinction between self-defence and collective security. In particular, it looks at the controversy regarding the legal basis of the use of force over Korea in 1950. It also outlines six differences identified by Bowett with regard to collective self-defence and collective measures under Chapter VII.

Can jus ad bellum override jus in bello? Reaffirming the separation of the two bodies of law

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (872) ◽  
pp. 963-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmine Moussa
Keyword(s):  
Academic Writing ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Two Bodies ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThe theoretical separation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello provides important protection during armed conflict. It guarantees that jus in bello will apply regardless of the cause of a conflict. However, this distinction has been challenged by the view that in some cases a situation of self-defence may be so extreme, and the threat to the survival of the state so great, that violations of jus in bello may be warranted. The situation is compounded by the confusion of the principles of necessity and proportionality under jus ad bellum and jus in bello in both academic writing and the jurisprudence of international courts. The dangers of blurring the distinction will be elucidated by examining how jus ad bellum considerations have affected the application of jus in bello in armed conflicts between states and non-state actors.

13. The international regulation of the use of force

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Henriksen
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Primary Responsibility ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter discusses the regulation of when and for what purpose a state may use force against another state — jus ad bellum. It provides an overview of the legal framework in the 1945 UN Charter. It analyses the content of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter; discusses the competences of the UN Security Council; and examines the right to self-defence. The Security Council is entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council may authorize the use of force if required to maintain and/or restore the peace. Article 51 of the Charter allows a state to defend itself in the case of armed attack.

New code for the protection of civilian population and property during armed conflict

1980 ◽  
Vol 20 (219) ◽  
pp. 287-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ionel Gloşcă
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
State Activity ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Do So

One of the principles underlying international law applicable in armed conflicts is that no act of war is permitted against the civilian population, consisting, by definition, of persons who take no part in the hostilities.Until the holocaust of 1939–45, international law gave practically no real protection to the civilian population in the event of war, and was not even intended to do so since up to that time war was considered to be a State activity from which civilians remained aloof. There were, nonetheless, general principles and rules in various international treaties which, in one way or another, related also to the civilian population.

18 The Law of Neutrality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bothe Michael
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Neutral State ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter focuses on rules of the law of neutrality concerning the protection of the victims of armed conflicts, which must be considered as part of international humanitarian law. ‘Neutrality’ describes the particular status, as defined by international law, of a state not party to an armed conflict. This status entails specific rights and duties in the relationship between the neutral and the belligerent states. On one hand, there is the right of the neutral state to remain apart from, and not to be adversely affected by, the conflict. On the other hand, there is the duty of non-participation and impartiality. The right not to be adversely affected means that the relationship between the neutral and belligerent States is governed by the law of peace, which is modified only in certain respects by the law of neutrality. In particular, the neutral State must tolerate certain controls in the area of maritime commerce. The duty of non-participation means, above all, that the state must abstain from supporting a party to the conflict. This duty not to support also means that the neutral state is under a duty not to allow one party to the conflict to use the resources of the neutral state against the will of the opponent.

scholarly journals Non-lethal weapons

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 831-853
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Hoffberger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Military Objective ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

If thinking about weapons, one generally thinks about lethal technology. However, an abundance of so-called non-lethal weapons, a technology not aimed at killing but merely incapacitating the human target or military objective, is also being deployed both within and outside the ambit of armed conflict. Since non-lethal weapons do not necessarily implicate a zero chance of mortality, but often lead to severe wounds and tremendous suffering, the use and deployment of such weapons raise strong humanitarian and human rights concerns. The prohibition to cause superfluous injuries and unnecessary suffering, as well as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks are, amongst others, one of the most relevant provisions potentially having an influence on the deployment of nonlethal technology in armed conflict. However, the invocation of the principle of proportionality may lead to the justification of the use of non-lethal weapons on the grounds that the military advantage anticipated was greater than the human suffering caused. Insofar, one must ask whether there is a “red-line”; where the almost inflationary invocation of the principle of proportionality may defeat the object and purpose of the Geneva Conventions and therefore render the deployment and use of non-lethal technology illegal. Apart from the battlefield, non-lethal weapons are also being deployed in lawenforcement scenarios, where human rights law plays a pivotal role. In this regard, one must not look merely at the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading suffering and the right to life but also at the right to health, a presumably underestimated principle curbing and shaping the use of non-lethal technology outside the ambit of armed conflict.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document