From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Occupation ◽  
Self Defence

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Law on the Use of Force: Missed Opportunities or Unrealistic Expectations?

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McKeever
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unrealistic Expectations

AbstractIn recent years, the International Court of Justice has been presented with opportunities to pronounce on important dimensions of the law on the use of force. An assessment of the court's handling of these issues must consider first the role attributed to the Court within the international legal regime for preventing and mitigating the use of force, and thus what exactly would amount to 'success' for the Court in such cases. Notwithstanding the inherent limitations on the Court's capacity in this area, this article argues that the Court has largely failed to provide clear guidance on pressing legal questions. An unwarranted caution in utilising the judicial tools at its disposal is one important factor in this regard. Finally, this article highlights some potential consequences of the Court's recent work for the development of international law on the use of force.

Hot Pursuit

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The State ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Legal Justification ◽  
The Right ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the doctrine of ‘hot pursuit’ used by the state to exercise its coercive powers beyond national territory for law enforcement purposes. It discusses hot pursuit by sea, land, and air in the context of international law, particularly with respect to self-defence and reprisal. Whilst hot pursuit is well recognized in the customary international law of the sea, it has yet to achieve that form of normative recognition in relation to pursuit on land or by air. The chapter considers the debate over hot pursuit as a legal justification for cross-border military incursions independent of the right of self-defence and describes the concept of extended constructive presence before concluding with an analysis of hot pursuit in a use of force context.

Applying Necessity and Proportionality to Anti-Terrorist Self-Defence

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian J Tams ◽  
James G Devaney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Excessive Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Terrorist Threat ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
Inter State

Recent years have seen increasing reliance on self-defence as a concept justifying the use of force against armed attacks by terrorists operating from within a foreign state. While the matter has prompted major debates, a good case can be made that contemporary international law now begins to recognise a right of self-defence against attacks by terrorists. (We will refer to this in the following as ‘anti-terrorist self-defence’, meaning a response directed against an attack carried out by a terrorist organisation.) This article deliberately does not rehearse the major debates about the scope of self-defence, but moves beyond them. It seeks to assess whether and how the two main limitations on the exercise of self-defence – namely necessity and proportionality – could be adapted to self-defence outside the inter-state setting. It shows that both limitations do indeed require some adaptation in order to be applied to anti-terrorist self-defence.With respect to necessity, we argue that this adaptation is actually a chance to make sense of a requirement that is of very limited practical relevance in the inter-state setting. As the article shows, necessity can assume a crucial role in the anti-terrorist setting: in order for trans-border uses of force to be necessary, states invoking self-defence must demonstrate that the terrorist threat cannot be repelled by the host state (on whose territory the terrorists are based).As for proportionality, recent debates about anti-terrorist self-defence expose the weaknesses of proportionality as a restraint on self-defence. Construed primarily as a prohibition against excessive force, even in the inter-state setting, proportionality has always been dependent on the nature of the aims pursued in the name of self-defence. Recent anti-terrorist practice suggests that many states are prepared to accept far-reaching uses of force against terrorists. It also suggests that, in applying proportionality, the targeted (or otherwise) character of the response is of crucial importance. The law is clearly in a state of flux, but in debates such as those about Turkey's use of force against the PKK or Israel's military operations against Hamas or Hezbollah, one can see the beginning of a process of developing guidelines on proportionality.

International Law and the Use of Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gray Christine
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Government ◽  
Self Defence

This book explores the use of force in international law. It examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the increasing role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter framework is under challenge: Russia’s invasion of Georgia and intervention in Ukraine, the USA’s military operations in Syria, and Saudi Arabia’s campaign to restore the government of Yemen by force all raise questions about the law on intervention. The ‘war on terror’ that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA has not been won. It has spread far beyond Afghanistan, leading to targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and to intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Is there an expanding right of self-defence against non-state actors? The development of nuclear weapons by North Korea has reignited discussion about the legality of pre-emptive self-defence. The NATO-led operation in Libya increased hopes for the implementation of ‘responsibility to protect’, but it also provoked criticism for exceeding the Security Council’s authorization of force because its outcome was regime change. UN peacekeeping faces new challenges, especially with regard to the protection of civilians, and UN forces have been given revolutionary mandates in several African states, but UN peacekeeping is not suited to counter-terrorism or enforcement operations. The UN now turns to regional organizations as first responders in situations of ongoing armed conflict.

The Use of Force Against Pirates

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Guilfoyle
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Security Personnel ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines the use of force against piracy in the context of international law, with particular reference to the pirates off Somalia. It discusses the counter-piracy activities by multinational military forces under the applicable public international law of the sea and as law enforcement operations. It also considers the issues raised by the use of force by private merchant vessels in self-defence, including the use of privately contracted armed security personnel. The chapter reviews the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the legal regime applicable at sea and ashore within Somalia itself. It also analyses the Council’s authorization of states to use ‘all necessary means to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery’ within Somalia’s territorial sea.

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.

Introduction and History of Rules of Engagement

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
J.F.R. Boddens Hosang
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Actual Application ◽  
Principal Source ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ancient Times

This section provides an overall introduction to the book, explaining the methodology of studying rules of engagement in the context of (international) law. The book adopts the perspective of military and law enforcement personnel on the actual application of the use of force in military operations and in law enforcement. On these bases, the focus is principally directed at the rules on the use of force issued to such personnel in order to carry out their tasks, while their analyses and interpretations were directed at those rules themselves as the principal source of authorizations and restrictions on the use of force in the conduct of their operations. Furthermore, the chapter provides a historical overview of how rules of engagement have developed from ancient times to the present, with a particular focus on how they have been affected by the conflicts of the twentieth century onwards.

Common Interests of Humankind and the International Regulation of the Use of Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enzo Cannizzaro
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mere Existence ◽  
Further Development

The chapter discusses the philosophical foundations of the current regulation of the use of force. The chapter argues that, in correspondence with the emergence of a sphere of substantive rules protecting common interests of humankind, international law is also gradually developing a system of protection against egregious breaches of these interests. This conclusion is reached through an analysis of the law and practice governing the action of the UN Security Council as well as the law of state responsibility concerning individual and collective reactions to serious breaches of common interests. This system is based on positive obligations imposed upon individual states as well as UN organs, and it appears to be still rudimentary and inefficient. However, the chapter suggests that the mere existence of this system, these shortcomings notwithstanding, has the effect of promoting the further development of the law in search for more appropriate mechanisms of protection.

scholarly journals Selling international law enforcement: Elite justifications and public values

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095678
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Lee ◽  
Lauren Prather
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Support ◽  
International Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Values ◽  
Norm Enforcement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Order Increase

International law enforcement is an understudied but indispensable factor for maintaining the international order. We study the effectiveness of elite justifications in building coalitions supporting the enforcement of violations of the law against territorial seizures. Using survey experiments fielded in the USA and Australia, we find that the effectiveness of two common justifications for enforcement—the illegality of a country’s actions, and the consequences of those actions for international order—increase support for enforcement and do so independently of two key public values: ideology and interpersonal norm enforcement. These results imply elites can build a broad coalition of support by using multiple justifications. Our results, however, highlight the tepidness of public support, suggesting limits to elite rhetoric. This study contributes to the scholarship on international law by showing how the public, typically considered a mechanism for generating compliance within states, can impede or facilitate third-party enforcement of the law between states.

The South China Sea

Asian Survey ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stein Tønnesson
Keyword(s):  
South China Sea ◽  
International Law ◽  
South China ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The South China Sea ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The South ◽  
Government Behavior ◽  
China Sea ◽  
The Law

The article looks at three ways in which international law has affected government behavior in the South China Sea. It has exacerbated disputes. It has probably curtailed the use of force. And it has made it difficult to imagine solutions that violate the law of the sea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document