Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence pp 249–268Cite as

The Interpretation of Self-Defence and the United Nations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1269 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks at the approach adopted by several UN organs to the temporality and elements of self-defence. Two resolutions of the General Assembly as well as relevant reports and discussions of the International Law Commission are discussed. The applicable findings of the 2004 UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change are also given attention. Further, relevant judgments of the International Court of Justice are analysed on the basis of the elements of self-defence.

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.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 188.

  2. 2.

    Dixon 2000, pp. 45–47.

  3. 3.

    GA Res. 2625, Friendly Relations Declaration, Part 1.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., Part 3.

  6. 6.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 188.

  7. 7.

    GA Res. 3314, Definition of Aggression, Art. 1.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., Article. 3(a)–(d).

  9. 9.

    Ibid., Article. 3(e) and (f).

  10. 10.

    Ibid., Article. 3(g).

  11. 11.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 195.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Succinct references to ‘anticipatory self-defence’ were made during the discussions on diplomatic protection and on the draft Code of Crimes against Peace and Security of Mankind, but no elaborate discussions followed on the subject. See UN Doc. A/CN.4/506 (2000) p. 19, para 56, as well as Summary Record of the 2135th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.2135 (1989) p. 297, para 47.

  14. 14.

    The Work of the International Law Commission, 5th edn. 1996 pp. 121–122; Analytical Guide to the Work of the International Law Commission, 1949–1997, 1998, pp. 226–255.

  15. 15.

    Ago 1980.

  16. 16.

    Ibid., p. 70.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., p. 68, paras 117–118.

  18. 18.

    ILC Report 1980, p. 52.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    UN Doc. A/CN.4/498/Add.2 1999. Crawford’s report focused primarily on the question of whether use of force in self-defence precluded the wrongfulness of acts in breach of other international obligations, stemming from international humanitarian law, human rights law, environmental law (pp. 33–37). The same question was addressed by several members during the 2589th meeting. of the ILC. See Summary Record of the 2589th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.2589 1999.

  21. 21.

    Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries 2001, p. 74. The comments on Art. 21 (Self-Defence) focus on the question whether use of force in self-defence precludes the wrongfulness of acts in breach of other international obligations (pp. 74–75).

  22. 22.

    Ago 1980, p. 61, para 104.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., pp. 62–63, paras 107–108.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 63, para 108.

  25. 25.

    Summary Record of the 1621st ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1621 1980 para 2 (comment by Schwebel).

  26. 26.

    Ibid., para 20 (comment by Sir Francis Vallat).

  27. 27.

    Summary Record of the 1627th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 1980 para 3 (comment by Tsuruoka).

  28. 28.

    Ago 1980, p. 64, paras 110–111.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., pp. 64–65, paras 111–112.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., pp. 65–66, paras 113–114.

  31. 31.

    Summary Record of the 1620th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1620 (1980) paras 16 (comment by Ushakov), 20–21 (comment by Reuter); Summary Record of the 1621st ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1621 (1980) paras 4 (comment by Schwebel), 20–21 (comment by Vallat); Summary Record of the 1628th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1628 (1980) para 13 (comment by Verosta).

  32. 32.

    Summary Record of the 1627th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 (1980) para 5 (comment by Diaz Gonzalez).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 6 (comment by Diaz Gonzalez).

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para 21 (comment by Chairman Pinto).

  35. 35.

    Ibid., paras 10–11 (comment by Barboza).

  36. 36.

    ILC Report 1980, p. 58, para 19.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 60, para 22.

  38. 38.

    Ago 1980, pp. 61–62, para 106.

  39. 39.

    Summary Record of the 1621st ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1621 1980 para 5 (comment by Schwebel).

  40. 40.

    ILC Report 1980, p. 57, para 16.

  41. 41.

    Ago 1980, p. 67, para 116.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., p. 53, para 88. That statement was almost literally transposed in the ILC Report 1980, p. 52, para 3.

  43. 43.

    Ago 1980, p. 54, para 90. That statement was reiterated in a slightly changed form in the ILC Report 1980, p. 53, para 5.

  44. 44.

    Ago 1980, p. 54, para 90.

  45. 45.

    Summary Record of the 1627th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 (1980) para 10 (comment by Barboza).

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para 11.

  47. 47.

    Ago 1980, p. 69, para 120.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., pp. 69–70, para 121.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., (emphasis added). It has to be reiterated that Ago believed that self-defence could only be exercised against states. Ibid., pp. 61–62, para 106.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., pp. 69, para 121.

  51. 51.

    Summary Record of the 1620th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1620 (1980) para 4 (comment by Riphagen).

  52. 52.

    Summary Record of the 1629th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1629 (1980) para 9 (comment by Ago).

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Ago 1980, p. 54, para 90. That statement was reiterated in a slightly changed form in the ILC Report 1980, p. 53, para 5.

  55. 55.

    UN Doc. A/59/565 (2004), p. 1.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para 188, p. 54.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para 189, p. 54.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para 190, p. 55.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., para 191, p. 55.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., para 192, p. 55.

  63. 63.

    For criticism of the report see: Corten 2007, pp. 217–232.

  64. 64.

    For the factual background of these cases, see Nicaragua 1986, paras 18–25; Oil Platforms 2003, paras 23–26; Armed Activities in Congo 2005, paras 72–91. For background of the advisory opinions, see Nuclear Weapons 1996, paras 1, 20–22; Israeli Wall 2004, para 1.

  65. 65.

    Green 2009, p. 30. Green also discusses the gravity threshold set by the Court for armed attack. Ibid., pp. 31–42.

  66. 66.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 195; GA Res. 3314, Definition of Aggression.

  67. 67.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 195.

  68. 68.

    Israeli Wall 2004, para 139.

  69. 69.

    Armed Activities in Congo 2005, para 147.

  70. 70.

    Nicaragua 1986, p. 543 (dissenting opinion of Judge Jennings). Per a contrario, Gray 2004, pp. 109–110.

  71. 71.

    Nicaragua 1986, p. 543–544 (dissenting opinion of Judge Jennings).

  72. 72.

    Israeli Wall 2004, p. 215 (separate opinion of Judge Higgins)..

  73. 73.

    Ibid., p. 242 (declaration of Judge Buergenthal).

  74. 74.

    Ibid., pp. 229–230 (separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans).

  75. 75.

    Armed Activities in Congo 2005, p. 337 (separate opinion of Judge Simma).

  76. 76.

    Ibid., p. 313 (separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans).

  77. 77.

    Wedgwood 2005, p. 58; Breau 2005, pp. 1007–1008; Kelly 2005, pp. 224–225; Murphy 2005, p. 62.

  78. 78.

    Wedgwood 2005, p. 58.

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Kelly 2005, p. 225.

  81. 81.

    Ibid.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., pp. 225–226.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., pp. 226–227.

  84. 84.

    Ibid., p. 227.

  85. 85.

    Murphy 2005, p. 62. Wedgwood and Murphy have also dismissed the Court’s contention that Israel, as an occupying power, could not defend its territory and nationals against armed attacks emanating from the occupied territory. Wedgwood 2005, pp. 58–59; Murphy 2005, pp. 68–69.

  86. 86.

    Barbour and Salzman 2008, p. 62; Gathii 2007, p. 148; Verhoeven 2006, pp. 360, 363.

  87. 87.

    Barbour and Salzman 2008, pp. 61–62.

  88. 88.

    Oil Platforms 2003, paras 52–61, 71.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., para 72.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., para 64.

  91. 91.

    Taft 2004, p. 306.

  92. 92.

    Ibid., p. 299.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., p. 306.

  94. 94.

    Gill 2007, p. 123.

  95. 95.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 195; Israeli Wall 2004, para 139.

  96. 96.

    Oil Platforms 2003, paras 52–61, 64, 71.

  97. 97.

    Israeli Wall 2004, pp. 215 (separate opinion of Judge Higgins), 229–230 (separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans), 242 (declaration of Judge Buergenthal); Armed Activities in Congo 2005, pp. 313 (separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans), 337 (separate opinion of Judge Simma).

  98. 98.

    On the marginalization of necessity and proportionality in general, see Gray 2004, pp. 122–123; Green 2009, pp. 105–107.

  99. 99.

    Armed Activities in Congo 2005, para 143.

  100. 100.

    Oil Platforms 2003, para 76.

  101. 101.

    Green 2009, pp. 105–107.

  102. 102.

    Nuclear Weapons 1996, para 42.

  103. 103.

    Oil Platforms 2003, para 77.

  104. 104.

    Ibid.

  105. 105.

    Ibid.

  106. 106.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 176.

  107. 107.

    Ibid.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    Ibid.

  110. 110.

    Ago 1980, p. 67, para 116; Armed Activities in Congo 2005, para 143.

  111. 111.

    UN Doc. A/59/565 (2004), para 188, p. 54.

  112. 112.

    Ago 1980, p. 53, para 88. That statement was almost literally transposed in the ILC Report 1980, p. 52, para 3.

  113. 113.

    Ago 1980, p. 69, para 121; Summary Record of the 1620th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1620 (1980) para 4 (comment by Riphagen); Oil Platforms 2003, para 77.

  114. 114.

    See supra 11.2.4. Ago asserted that the requirement of proportionality had to be measured against the result to be achieved by the defensive action, and not the forms, substance and strength of the action itself. Ago 1980, p. 69, para 121. Riphagen agreed, but warned against the abuse of the proportionality requirement. Summary Record of the 1620th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1620 (1980) para 4 (comment by Riphagen); Summary Record of the 1629th ILC meeting., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1629 (1980) para 9 (comment by Ago).

  115. 115.

    See supra 11.4.3. Oil Platforms 2003, para 77.

References

  • Ago R (1980) Addendum to the eighth report on state responsibility. UN Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Analytical guide to the work of the International Law Commission, 1949–1997 (1998). United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgement of 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour SA, Salzman ZA (2008) “The tangled web”: the right of self-defence against non-state actors in the Armed Activities case. NYU J Int Law Politics (special issue) 40:53–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Breau SC (2005) Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory: advisory opinion, 9 July 2004. Int Comp Law Q 54:1003–1022

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2007) Le débat sur la légitime défense préventive à l’occasion des 60 ans de l’ONU: nouvelles revendications, oppositions persistantes. In: Kherad R (ed) Légitimes défenses: colloque international organisé par le Laboratoire Angevin de Recherches sur les Actes Juridiques en collab. avec le Centre d’Études sur la Coopération Juridique International, LGDJ, Paris, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon M (2000) Textbook on international law. Blackstone Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol 2, Part II. pp 31–143

    Google Scholar 

  • GA Res 2625: General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970) Friendly Relations Declaration

    Google Scholar 

  • GA Res. 3314: General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) Definition of Aggression

    Google Scholar 

  • Gathii JT (2007) Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). Am J Int Law 101:142–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2007) The temporal dimension of self-defence. In: Schmitt M, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines. Essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 113–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2004) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2009) The International Court of Justice and self-defence in international law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC report 1980: Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its 32nd Session, 5 May–25 July 1980, UN Doc. A/35/10 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Israeli Wall 2004: Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory. Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Rep. (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly MJ (2005) Critical analysis of the International Court of Justice ruling on Israel’s security barrier. Fordham Int Law J 29:181–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SD (2005) Self-defence and the Israeli Wall advisory opinion: an ipse dixit from the ICJ? Am J Int Law 99:62–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicaragua 1986: Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Weapons 1996: Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Rep. (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of 6 November 2003, ICJ Rep. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft WH (2004) Self-defense and the Oil Platforms decision. Yale J Int Law 29:295–306

    Google Scholar 

  • The work of the International Law Commission (1996) 5th edn. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven S (2006) A missed opportunity to clarify the modern Ius ad Bellum: case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo. Military Law Law War Rev 45:355–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood R (2005) The ICJ advisory opinion on the Israeli security fence and the limits of self-defense. Am J Int Law 99:52–61

    Article  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). The Interpretation of Self-Defence and the United Nations. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation