The Illegality of the Arab Attack on Israel of October 6, 1973

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene V. Rostow
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
Territorial Expansion ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Actual Control

In part II of his article, Destination Embargo of Arab Oil: Its Legality under International Law, Mr. Ibrahim F. I. Shihata defends the legality of the armed attack on Israel launched by many Arab states, with Soviet assistance, on October 6, 1973. “Egypt and Syria,” he writes, “as the states vested with sovereignty, but illegally deprived of actual control, over territories occupied by Israel were … entitled to seek redress for the protection of their territorial integrity. Under the UN system they were probably under the obligation to resort first to peaceful methods. This they have done in vain for more than six years. Egypt, in particular, expressed officially its readiness to enter into a peace agreement with Israel containing all the obligations provided for in Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) as broadly elaborated by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Ambassador Jarring. In response, Israel defiantly insisted on territorial expansion.” Under these circumstances, he argues, both Egypt and Syria (which had never accepted any version of Security Council Resolution 242 or given any assurances to Ambassador Jarring) had an inherent right of self-help under customary international law, or of self-defense under “a broad reading” of Article 51 of the Charter, in what he asserts was no more than an attempt to recover those territories by force.

11. Use of force

2019 ◽  
pp. 144-159
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years, the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

scholarly journals Dois pesos, duas medidas: a aplicação da necessidade e da proporcionalidade no jus ad bellum

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (41) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Macedo ◽  
Marinês Assmann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Right

RESUMOEstabelecido no artigo 51 da Carta das Nações Unidas, o direito à legítima defesa não é absoluto, devendo o Estado-vítima de ataque armado respeitar os requisitos pré-determinados pela estrutura legal internacional. Os princípios da necessidade e proporcionalidade da defesa exercem função primordial nesse sentido, uma vez que, segundo o direito costumeiro internacional, o Estado deve conformar sua conduta a eles. O presente trabalho tem por objetivo estabelecer o atual estado da arte no que respeita à necessidade e à proporcionalidade, como limitadoras do direito à legítima defesa no direito internacional público. Os mencionados princípios, apesar de bem consolidados e de fazerem parte do direito consuetudinário internacional, não têm seus contornos bem delimitados, causando discordâncias entre a prática estatal e a doutrina. PALAVRAS-CHAVEDireito internacional público. Legítima defesa. Necessidade. Proporcionalidade. ABSTRACTThe right to self-defense, established in the article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, is not absolute, and the State victimized by an armed attack must comply with the requirements determined by the international legal framework. In this sense, the principles of necessity and proportionality of the defense play a primary role since, according to customary international law, the State must shape its conduct to these principles. The present work aims to outline the current state of the art of necessity and proportionality as limits to the right to self-defense in public international law. These principles, although well-established and part of international customary law, do not have their boundaries well-defined, causing disagreements between State practices and doctrine. KEYWORDSPublic international law. Self-defense. Necessity. Proportionality.

11. Use of force

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Art 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack By Nonstate Actors

2012 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 770-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bethlehem
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
World Trade Center ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nonstate Actors ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Trade Center

There has been an ongoing debate over recent years about the scope of a state’s right of selfdefense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors. The debate predates the Al Qaeda attacks against the World Trade Center and elsewhere in the United States on September 11,2001, but those events sharpened its focus and gave it greater operational urgency. While an important strand of the debate has taken place in academic journals and public forums, there has been another strand, largely away from the public gaze, within governments and between them, about what the appropriate principles are, and ought to be, in respect of such conduct. Insofar as these discussions have informed the practice of states and their appreciations of legality, they carry particular weight, being material both to the crystallization and development of customary international law and to the interpretation of treaties.

scholarly journals The Challenge of Cyber Attacks in the “Information Age” and the Jus Ad Bellum

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Pshtiwan Mohammed Qader
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Cyber Attacks ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Critical Infrastructures ◽  
Cyber Attack ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Right

The present paper examines the problem of cyber-attacks under existing international law. It takes the view that the (United Nations) UN Charter provisions on the use of force can be extended to cyber-attacks by means of interpretation although the relevant provisions do not explicitly address such issue. This Article argues that cyber-attacks resulting in material damage or destruction to property, death or injury to persons, or severe disruption of the functioning of critical infrastructures can be characterized as use of armed force and therefore violate the prohibition contained in article 2(4) of the Charter. However, cyber-attacks not resulting in the above consequences may be illegal intervention in the internal affairs of other states if such attacks are coercive in nature. In addition, the current study discusses that a cyber-attack which amounts to a use of armed force per se is not sufficient to give the victim state the right to self-defense, unless its scale and effects are equivalent to those of a conventional armed attack. Finally, the study concludes that an international cyber treaty is truly necessary to more effectively address cyber-attacks.

The United Nations Compensation Commission— Developments Since October 1992

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Bettauer
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Security Council Resolution ◽  
First Year ◽  
Governing Council ◽  
Executive Secretary ◽  
Injury Category ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Foreign Governments

Paragraph 16 of Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) reaffirmed that “Iraq … is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, … or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.” This resolution and Security Council Resolution 692 (May 20, 1991) established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) to administer a system to provide compensation for claims for which Iraq is liable under paragraph 16. The Commission has a Governing Council, composed of the members of the Security Council; panels of commissioners, appointed from time to time to review particular groups of claims; and a secretariat headed by an Executive Secretary. The Commission’s Governing Council first met in Geneva in July 1991 and in the first year of its existence adopted decisional criteria for six categories of claims: Category “A” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for departure from Iraq or Kuwait; Category “B” — claims of individuals for fixed amounts for death or serious personal injury; Category “C” —claims of individuals for amounts up to $100,000; Category “D” —claims of individuals for amounts above $100,000; Category “E” —claims of corporations; and Category “F” — claims of governments and international organizations.

11. Use of force

2021 ◽  
pp. 149-164
Author(s):  
Ilias Bantekas ◽  
Efthymios Papastavridis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Armed Force ◽  
Collective Security ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Significant Achievement ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter examines under what circumstances States may use armed force under customary international law and Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter. After noting that the use of armed force is generally prohibited and only limited to self-defence, and then only if the target State is under an armed attack, we show that several States have expanded the notion of armed attack. Besides self-defence, the United Nations Security Council may authorize the use of armed force through a process of collective security. Several examples of collective security are offered, as well as the ICJ’s position on what constitutes an armed attack. In recent years, the range of actors capable of undertaking an armed attack has included terrorists. Moreover, the development of the doctrine of the responsibility to protect is a significant achievement.

Part 3 The Post 9/11-Era (2001–), 48 The Intervention in Afghanistan—2001–

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byers Michael
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Complex Relationships ◽  
Self Defence

This chapter addresses the US and NATO-led intervention in Afghanistan from 2001 to the present day. It examines the different legal justifications advanced or available for the intervention, namely self-defence, UN Security Council authorization, and intervention by invitation. It explores the complex relationships between these justifications and, particularly, the strategies adopted by states in choosing between them. The chapter concludes by considering the effects of the intervention on the customary international law of self-defence as it concerns non-state actors located in “unaware or unable” states, and anticipatory or pre-emptive responses.

Part 1 The Cold War Era (1945–89), 26 The US Hostage Rescue Operation in Iran—1980

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Forteau Mathias ◽  
Ying Xiu Alison See
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Rescue Operation ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Self Help ◽  
The Us ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
The Cold War

The present contribution discusses the US hostage recuse operation in Iran in 1980. After the presentation of the relevant facts and context of the (eventually aborted) operation, including the official positions of the US and Iran as publicly expressed at that time, the present contribution assesses the legality of the operation, taking into account the reactions of other states and competent international organizations. The legality of the operation is assessed under Article 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter and other possible exceptions under customary international law such as self-help. It concludes that it is doubtful that the operation was in conformity with international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document