Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence pp 59–80Cite as

Self-Defence as a Measure Short of War

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1203 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the way war and warfare was understood by the realist–positivist approach of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, in order to map out the normative framework in which the right of self-defence was acknowledged. This chapter relies on both authoritative writings and representative instances of state practice relevant for self-defence. Only those instances of state practice are given attention, which aid in understanding how self-defence was viewed by parties to a conflict. The chapter examines the way the content and temporal dimension of self-defence were understood during this period. Among other cases, the Caroline incident is discussed and its significance as a locus classicus of ‘anticipatory self-defence’ examined. The concluding remarks assess whether the status and limits of anticipatory action, as identified in the previous normative framework, were altered during this period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 43. Realist, neo-liberal and nationalist theories view the Peace of Westphalia as the foundation of the modern European state system. For such an opinion and for addressing the criticisms brought to the model, see Krasner 1995–1996, p. 115. Recently, some international relations scholars expressed the view that the Westphalian sovereignty principle and state-system model is the result of a laborious mythification process brought about by nineteenth- and twentieth-century nationalist historians. See Osiander 2001, pp. 264–265. See also Beaulac 2000, pp. 148–177.

  2. 2.

    The Concert of Europe (the ‘Congress System’) was a series of meetings between the old great powers of Europe between 1815 and 1914. Its founding members were Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia.

  3. 3.

    Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 142.

  4. 4.

    See Aquinas’ definition of natural law in Lisska 1996, pp. 263–266, 272–278.

  5. 5.

    Reichberg et al. 2006, pp. 441–442.

  6. 6.

    Neff 2005, pp. 132, 138.

  7. 7.

    Hobbes, Leviathan 1991, Chap. 13 (12), in May et al. 2006, p. 82.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., pp. 80–83.

  9. 9.

    Pufendorf 1991, Book II, Chap. 1 (11), pp. 118–119.

  10. 10.

    Pufendorf 1934, Book VIII, Chap. 6 (7), p. 1325.

  11. 11.

    Pufendorf 1991, Book II, Chap. 16 (2), p. 168.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., Book II, Chap. 1 (11), p. 119.

  13. 13.

    Pufendorf 1934, Book VIII, Chap. 6 (7), p. 1298.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., Book VIII, Chap. 6 (7), p. 1298 (referring to Chaps. 11–16 of Book III of Grotius’ De jure belli treatise).

  15. 15.

    Wolff 1934, Section 791.

  16. 16.

    Reichberg et al. 2006, p. 504.

  17. 17.

    Vattel 1964, pp. xxix–xlii.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., Book III, Chap. 12, Section 189, pp. 304–305.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p. 305.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., p. 304.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., Book II, Chap. 5, Sections 67–68, p. 135, and Book III, Chap. 1, Section 5, p. 236.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., Book I, Chap. 2, Sections 16 and 18, pp. 13–14.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., Book III, Chap. 11, Section 187, p. 303, and Chap. 12, Sections 191–192, pp. 305–306.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., Chap. 12, Section 190, p. 305.

  26. 26.

    Neff 2005, pp. 111–115.

  27. 27.

    Roberts 2008, p. 938.

  28. 28.

    Vattel 1964, Book III, Chap. 4, pp. 254–258.

  29. 29.

    One famous case in which the formalities concerning the declaration of war and the commencement of hostilities were not observed was the Japanese surprise attack on Port Arthur in February 1904 opening the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. For more details, see: Neff 2005, pp. 182–183.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., Chap. 2, pp. 237–242, especially Section 6, p. 237.

  31. 31.

    Gentili 1933, Book I, Chap. 14, p. 62.

  32. 32.

    Hobbes 1991, Chap. 13, p. 88.

  33. 33.

    Pufendorf 1934, Book VIII, Chap. 6 (7), p. 1298.

  34. 34.

    Vattel 1964, Book III, Chap. 3, Section 42, p. 248.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., Section 44, p. 249.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., Section 46, p. 250.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., Book II, Chap. 4, Section 49, p. 130.

  39. 39.

    Neff 2005, p. 156.

  40. 40.

    Vattel 1964, Book III, Chap. 4, Section 67, p. 257. See also: Grewe 2000, pp. 525–530.

  41. 41.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 30.

  42. 42.

    Vattel 1964, Book II, Chap. 18, Sections 343–347, pp. 228–229. See also: Grewe 2000, pp. 525–527.

  43. 43.

    Consult for difference between special and general reprisals: Neff 2005, pp. 122–126; Twiss 1863, pp. 30–31.

  44. 44.

    Neff 2005, p. 156.

  45. 45.

    Vattel also draws a parallel between the right of individuals and nations to resist attack and asserts that the content of that right stems from the same source. Vattel 1964, Book II, Chap. IV, Section. 49, p. 130.

  46. 46.

    Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 2 (xvi), p. 184.

  47. 47.

    Hobbes, Leviathan1991, Chap. 13 (8), Chap. 14 (3), (6)–(7), and Chap. 15 (5), in May et al. 2006, pp. 81–87.

  48. 48.

    Vattel 1964, Book III, Chap. 15, Section 223, p. 318.

  49. 49.

    Neff 2005, pp. 92–93.

  50. 50.

    Ibid. See also Nussbaum’s definition of total war Nussbaum 1947, p. 246.

  51. 51.

    Neff 2005, p. 93.

  52. 52.

    Clausewitz 1976, Book I, Chap. 1, Section 2, pp. 75–76.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., Section 3, pp. 75–76.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., Section 24, p. 87.

  55. 55.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 45–47.

  56. 56.

    Phillimore 1854, p. 225.

  57. 57.

    Twiss 1863, p. 3.

  58. 58.

    Hall 1880, p. 226.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., pp. 240-250, 306–314; Phillimore 1854, pp. 225–235; Phillimore 1857, pp. 1–35; Twiss 1863, pp. 1–42.

  60. 60.

    Phillimore 1854, p. 434; Halleck 1861, p. 83; Hall 1880, pp. 242–250; Oppenheim 1905, pp. 181–183.

  61. 61.

    Halleck 1861, pp. 83–84; Hall 1880, pp. 242–250; Oppenheim 1905, pp. 181–183.

  62. 62.

    Phillimore 1857, pp. 10–13; Halleck 1861, p. 297; Hall 1880, p. 306; Twiss 1863, pp. 18–20; Oppenheim 1906, pp. 34–35.

  63. 63.

    Halleck 1861, p. 297; Hall 1880, p. 308.

  64. 64.

    Oppenheim 1906, pp. 34–35.

  65. 65.

    Phillimore 1857, p. 434; Hall 1880, p. 245.

  66. 66.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 33–34.

  67. 67.

    Twiss 1860, p. 11.

  68. 68.

    Hall 1880, pp. 227–232.

  69. 69.

    Phillimore 1857, p. 225; Twiss 1860, p. 11.

  70. 70.

    Phillimore 1857, pp. 225–231; Twiss 1860, pp. 143–145.

  71. 71.

    Hall and Coerver 1990. pp. 35–36,

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 60.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., pp. 60–61.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., p. 62. The protocol provided that crossing would be permitted only if another raid took place, pursuant to the principle of ‘hot pursuit’. Consequently, the Mexican government did not agree in the protocol to admit the crossing of a force clearly bigger than small detachments six days after an incident took place. A division composed of more than five thousand men with plans to venture deep inside Mexican territory launched well after the raid took place went well beyond the characteristics of ‘hot pursuit’.

  75. 75.

    Hall and Coerver 1990, pp. 61–64.

  76. 76.

    Hall 1880, pp. 227–229.

  77. 77.

    Jennings 1938, p. 82.

  78. 78.

    Hall 1880, p. 232.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., pp. 229–232.

  80. 80.

    Jennings 1938, pp. 82–84.

  81. 81.

    Webster 1841, p. 1140.

  82. 82.

    Jennings 1938, p. 85 nn. 8 and 9.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., p. 87 n. 14 (Law Officers’ Report of 25 March 1839).

  84. 84.

    Webster 1841, pp. 1132–1133.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., p. 1138.

  86. 86.

    Ibid.

  87. 87.

    Ibid.

  88. 88.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Higgins 1963, p. 199; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–236; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152; Schwebel 1972, p. 481; Waldock (1952, pp. 497–499).

  89. 89.

    Phillimore 1857, p. 228.

  90. 90.

    Hall 1880, pp. 227–229.

  91. 91.

    Neff 2005, p. 156.

  92. 92.

    Jennings 1938, p. 87 n. 14 (Law Officers’ Report of 25 March 1839).

  93. 93.

    See supra 2.4.4. Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (xvii), p. 184.

  94. 94.

    Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  95. 95.

    Ibid.

  96. 96.

    The Ten Years' War (1868–1878) was the first of three wars that Cuba fought against Spain for its independence. The second occurred between 1879 and 1880, whereas the third between 1895 and 1898, the last three months of which are known as the Spanish–American War.

  97. 97.

    Virginius Correspondence p. 3 (No. 165 (Fifty fourth Cong., first Sess. 1896).

  98. 98.

    Ibid., p. 21 (No. 18, Admiral Polo de Bernabé to Mr. Fish, Washington, 30 December 1873). For details on the way piracy was defined at that time, see: Rubin 1988, pp. 238–245.

  99. 99.

    Virginius Correspondence pp. 108–109 (No. 46, Mr. Cushing to Mr. Fish, Madrid, 5 December 1874).

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Hall 1880, pp. 232–234.

  102. 102.

    Virginius Correspondence p. 90 (No. 31, Mr. Cushing to Mr. Fish, Madrid, 22 July 1874).

  103. 103.

    See, for instance, Gratian, question I, in Reichberg et al. 2006, p. 110; Pisan, Part III, Chap. 12, in Reichberg et al. 2006, p. 219.

  104. 104.

    See supra 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5.

  105. 105.

    Hall 1880, p. 229.

  106. 106.

    Grewe 2000, pp. 525–530.

  107. 107.

    According to Webster, the law of nations acknowlegded a right of self-defence for the preservations of nations and individuals alike. Webster 1841, pp. 1132–1133.

  108. 108.

    Hall 1880, pp. 227–233. Nonetheless, Twiss continued Gentili’s and Vattel’s tradition and acknowledged self-defence as a right that could be exercised not only against immediate assault, but also ‘threatened aggression’ which was not necessarily imminent. Twiss 1860, pp. 11–12.

References

  • Baylis J, Smith S (eds) (2001) The globalisation of world politics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulac S (2000) The Westphalian legal orthodoxy: myth or reality? J Hist Int Law 2:148–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett DW (1958) Self-defense in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by states. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Clausewitz C (1976) On war. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck D (1988) Rules of engagement for maritime forces and the limitation of the use of force under the UN Charter. Ger Yearbk Int Law 31:165–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentili A (1933) De jure belli libri tres (trans: Rolfe JC). Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe WG (2000) The epochs of international law (trans: Byers M). De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1964) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (trans: Kelsey FW). Oceana, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall LB, Coerver DM (1990) Revolution on the border: The United States and Mexico 1910–1920. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall WE (1880) International law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Halleck HW (1861) International law or rules regulating the intercourse of states in peace and war. H.H. Bancroft, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1963) The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes T (1991) Leviathan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1938) The Caroline and McLeod cases. Am J Int Law 32:82–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner SD (1995–1996) Compromising Westphalia. Int Secur 20(3):115–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lisska AJ (1996) Aquinas’s theory of natural law. An analytic reconstruction. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1987) Countermeasures and self-defence as circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the International Law Commision’s Draft Articles on States Responsibility. In: Spinedi M, Simma B (eds) United Nations codification of state responsibility. Oceana, New York, pp 197–286

    Google Scholar 

  • May L et al (2006) The morality of war: classical and contemporary readings. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Feliciano FP (1961) Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff SC (2005) War and the law of nations: general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum A (1947) A concise history of the law of nations. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1905) International law: a treatise, vol 1. Longmans, Green and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1906) International law: a treatise, vol 2. Longmans, Green and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiander A (2001) Sovereignty, international relations and the Westphalian myth. Int Org 55:251–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillimore R (1854) Commentaries upon international law, vol 1. W. Benning, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillimore R (1857) Commentaries upon international law, vol 3. W. Benning, London

    Google Scholar 

  • von Pufendorf S (1934) De jure naturae et gentium libri octo, vol 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Pufendorf S (1991) On the duty of man and citizen according to natural law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichberg GM, Syse H, Begby E (eds) (2006) The ethics of war: classic and contemporary readings. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2008) The equal application of the laws of war: a principle under pressure. Int Rev Red Cr 90(872):931–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin AP (1988) The law of piracy. Naval War College Press, Newport

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1991) International law in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel SM (1972) Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law. Recueil des Cours 136(1972-II):411–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Twiss T (1860) Law of nations considered as independent political communities, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Twiss T (1863) Law of nations considered as independent political communities, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1964) The law of nations or the principles of natural law: applied to the conduct and to the affairs of nations and of sovereigns. Oceana, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Virginius Correspondence: Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant. A report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying Correspondence, with regard to the claim of indemnity from Spain for the Execution at Santiago de Cuba of persons who were on board the Virginius, US Senate Doc. No. 165 (54th Congress, 1st Session 1896)

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock CHM (1952) The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law. Recueil Des Cours 81(1952-II):451–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster 1841: Letter from Daniel Webster, US Secretary of State, to Henry Fox, British Minister in Washington, 24 April 1841, in British and Foreign State Papers, 1840–1841, vol 29 (1857). James Ridgway and Sons, London, pp 1129–1139

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff C (1934) Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forum for the Law of Armed Conflict and Peace Operations, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kinga Tibori Szabó (Researcher)

Authors
  1. Kinga Tibori Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szabó, K.T. (2011). Self-Defence as a Measure Short of War. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation