UN Police Action in Lieu of War: “The Old Order Changeth”

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck ◽  
Faiza Patel
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Old Order ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Police Action ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

The United Nations system is an elegant, carefully crafted instrument to make war illegal and unnecessary. To this end, in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, members are required to “refrain … from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”If such force is used despite that prohibition, the Charter envisages two kinds of military remedies: wars of self-defense and police actions. Article 51 authorizes members to use military force in exercise of the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs” in violation of Article 2(4). This provision merely recognizes that the old war system may still be needed until the new system of global policing can secure the peace for all.

After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force

1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck ◽  
Nigel S. Rodley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Law

In the Bangladesh crisis, two important objectives of international law appeared to be in conflict: that of peace and that of justice. The former objective is set out in the rules of the U.N. Charter against the use of force by states except in self-defense against an armed attack. The second is found in the provisions of the Charter and in various resolutions, declarations, and covenants pertaining to fundamental human rights and self determination.

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.

Introduction: International Law and the Problem of War

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Weller
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Community Values ◽  
Resolution Rule ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Nations System

This chapter examines the role of international law in preventing war and armed conflict. It begins by discussing three approaches to war and peace: the realist approach, the managerial approach, and the utopian visionary approach. It then considers some of the features of the United Nations system that were drawn from the League of Nations experience, including enforcement, dispute resolution, rule of law, prohibition of the use of force, and self-defence. The chapter also analyses how the UN Security Council deals with armed attacks undertaken by non-state actors, such as acts of terrorism. Finally, it outlines new challenges to the law on the use of force, particularly the new potential for armed conflict following the end of the Cold War, the issue of humanitarian intervention, and claims to enforcement of global community values.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón ◽  
Bas van der Vossen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self

We introduce general concepts of just war theory and describe different kinds of war: national self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention. After laying down the conditions for the justification of humanitarian intervention, we highlight some of our differences. We conclude with an outline of the international law of use of force and some jurisprudential themes that bear on the current humanitarian intervention debate.

Decisions in Japan to use Military Force or Participate in Multinational Peacekeeping Operations

2019 ◽  
pp. 827-842
Author(s):  
Tadashi Mori
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Existential Crisis ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Japanese Law ◽  
Individual Self

This chapter describes the law in Japan governing the country’s use of military force and participation in multinational peacekeeping operations. Although Article 9 of Japan’s post–World War II constitution seems to disallow the development of armed forces, the country has long maintained limited armed forces for purposes of self-defense. According to the Japanese government’s traditional constitutional interpretation, these forces can only be used when necessary to repel an armed attack on Japan. Under this interpretation, Japan can use armed force only for individual self-defense, not for collective self-defense or collective security. In addition, although Japanese law since the 1990s has allowed for some participation of Japanese forces in multinational peacekeeping operations, this allowance has been very limited. In 2015, however, Japan enacted two important statutes that broaden the government’s ability to use the country’s armed forces. One statute allows the country for the first time to exercise a right of collective self-defense, although the legislation only permits Japan to exercise this right for the purpose of ensuring its survival and protecting its people in situations that are called “existential crisis situations.” The other statute broadens the ability of Japanese forces to engage in various support activities in multinational peacekeeping operations. Because of Article 9 of the Constitution, however, Japan’s ability to use its military is still substantially more limited than for many other countries.

Necessity and Proportionality in International Peace and Security Law

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality

Necessity and proportionality hold a place in the international law governing the use of force by states and in the law of armed conflict (LOAC). However, the precise contours of these two requirements are uncertain and controversial. This book explores in 5 parts how necessity and proportionality manifest under the law governing the use of force and the LOAC. First, the book introduces the reader to how necessity and proportionality factor in the debate about the interaction between morality and law in the use of military force. Second, the book addresses the issue of how proportionality in the law governing the use of force relates to proportionality in the LOAC. Third, the book addresses a number of pressing legal issues including: how proportionality and necessity are linked under international law, the controversial “unwilling and unable” test, drones and targeted killing, their application during civil war, and the need for further transparency in states’ justification for the use of force in self-defense. Fourth, the book analyzes the role of military necessity within the LOAC on the battlefield. This includes discussions about the history and nature of the principle of military necessity, the proper application of the principle of proportionality, how commanders should account for mental harm in calculating proportionality, and the role artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems may play in a proportionality analysis. Finally, the book concludes with a discussion on the potential role of proportionality in the law governing post-conflict contexts.

The Suez Canal Dispute: A Case Study in Peaceful Settlement

1967 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert O. Matthews
Keyword(s):  
Extended Period ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The Past ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
Nations System

If the United Nations system is to outlaw the unilateral use of force, except in cases of self-defense, it is clear that some provision must be made for the peaceful settlement of disputes and for peaceful change. In the past, peacekeeping operations have often succeeded in restoring a fragile peace. Yet collective actionall too frequently has been limited to a restoration of the status quo ante. Indeed, states have usuallyfailed to accept any collective responsibility to deal with the grievances that initially led to the outbreak of hostilities. If peace is to be maintained over any extended period of time, peacekeeping operations must not, asAmbassador Arthur J. Goldberg recently warned, “be a sofa to provide a comfortable respite from efforts atpeaceful settlement” but instead should “be a springboard for accelerated efforts to eliminate the root causes of conflict.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document