Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Limits of Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the findings of Parts I and II on the limits of self-defence and draws conclusions as to the conditions under which anticipatory action in self-defence is legal. The discussion of these conditions is grouped according to the type of armed attacks that can threaten a particular state. Accordingly, the present chapter first elaborates on the conditions of necessity and proportionality in case of standard-type armed attacks, involving attacks of a significant scale and effect. Further, necessity and proportionality are analysed in cases where self-defence is (to be) exercised against repeated, small-scale attacks, also known as hit-and-run tactics. Although the chapter elaborates on all identified limits of self-defence, particular attention is given to immediacy—as the condition that directly affects the temporality of self-defence and has a special bearing on the legality of anticipatory action. The findings concerning the limits of anticipatory action are incorporated into an accessible formula.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See supra 6.5.

  2. 2.

    See supra 12.1 and 12.3.

  3. 3.

    See supra 10.6 and 12.3.

  4. 4.

    For examples of on the-spot-reaction, see Dinstein 2005, pp. 220–221.

  5. 5.

    See, for instance, Boddens Hosang 2010, pp. 415–427.

  6. 6.

    See supra 6.4.1 and introductory remarks of Part II.

  7. 7.

    Vitoria 1991b, p. 299; Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (ii), p. 172.

  8. 8.

    For instance: Gratian, question II, canon 1, in Reichberg et al. 2006, p. 113; Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (iii), p. 172 (attack by violence) and Chap. 2 (xvi), p. 184 (act of violence); June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214.

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, p. 214.

  11. 11.

    For instance: Suárez 1944, Disputation XIII, Section 1 (6), p. 804; Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (v), p. 173; Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  12. 12.

    The Caroline incident and the Virginius affair involved private citizens and property (see supra 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2). The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia endangered the territorial integrity and political independence of the occupied states (see supra 4.5.1 and 4.5.2). See also Bowett 1958, p. 5.

  13. 13.

    See supra 5.3.

  14. 14.

    Constantinou 2000, pp. 63–64, 74–75, 76; Green 2009, pp. 41–42; Lubell 2010, pp. 48–55; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 243–244.

  15. 15.

    Higgins 1963, pp. 204–205; Gray 2008, pp. 147–148; Schachter 1991, p. 164.

  16. 16.

    See supra 8.2.1; Repertoire, Supp. 1946–1951, Chap. 12, pp. 493−494.

  17. 17.

    See supra 8.2.1. GAOR, 1st Emergency Special Session, UN Doc. A/PV.562 (1956) paras 105−145.

  18. 18.

    See supra 8.2.1. SC Res. 54 (1948).

  19. 19.

    See supra 8.2.1.

  20. 20.

    Bowett 1958, p. 5.

  21. 21.

    See supra 3.2.2.1.

  22. 22.

    Gray 2008, pp. 147–148; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 238−240. See also supra 11.4.1. For an appraisal of the ICJ’s position on the required gravity of an armed attack, see Green 2009, pp. 31−42.

  23. 23.

    On the discussion of the scale and gravity of an armed attack, see, for instance, Gray 2008, pp. 128–133, 147–148; Lubell 2010, pp. 50–51; Schachter 1991, p. 164.

  24. 24.

    For an elaboration of the history of the Korean war, see Alexandrov 1996, pp. 257−261; Spanier 1959; Stanley 1952; Stueck 1997. For the significance of the 38th parallel as the demarcation line of the two Koreas, see Grey 1951.

  25. 25.

    See supra 8.2.2. Statement of Mr. Eban (Israel), SCOR, 22nd Session, 1348th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1348(OR) (6 June 1967) para 150; Wright 1968, p. 9.

  26. 26.

    Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    Gill 2007, p. 153; Jessup 1948, p. 164; Lubell 2010, p. 44.

  29. 29.

    See supra 9.3. Gill 2007, p. 141.

  30. 30.

    Ago 1980, p. 54.

  31. 31.

    See supra 8.2.2.

  32. 32.

    See supra 8.2.3. Mueller et al. 2006, p. 207.

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    See supra 8.3.1.

  35. 35.

    Ibid. SC Res. 83 (1950); UN Doc. S/23273 1991 para 6.

  36. 36.

    Schmitt 2003, p. 530.

  37. 37.

    Schachter 1991, p. 152.

  38. 38.

    Dinstein 2005, pp. 190–192; Gazzini 2005, pp. 151–3. See also: Abi Saab 1987, p. 371; Christakis 2005, pp. 211–212; Constantinou 2000, pp. 125–126; Corten 2008, pp. 626–627; Kolb 2004, pp. 123–125; Lachs 1980, p. 164; Ruys 2010, p. 266.

  39. 39.

    Dinstein 2005, pp. 190–191.

  40. 40.

    Ibid.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 191.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., pp. 190–191.

  43. 43.

    Gazzini 2005, pp. 151–153; Ruys 2010, pp. 253; Singh 1956, pp. 24–26.

  44. 44.

    See supra 8.3.2.

  45. 45.

    Badr 1980, p. 25.

  46. 46.

    See supra 6.2.

  47. 47.

    Gill 2007, p. 152.

  48. 48.

    Schachter 1985, p. 292.

  49. 49.

    Schachter 1985, p. 292.

  50. 50.

    See supra 8.3.2.

  51. 51.

    Freedman and Gamba-Stonehouse 1991, p. 122.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., p. 128.

  53. 53.

    For a portrayal of the conflict see Khadduri and Ghareeb 1997.

  54. 54.

    SCOR, 45th Session, 2932nd meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2932 (2 August 1990) pp. 8, 11; SC Res. 660 (1990) paras 1 and 2; SC Res. 661 (1990) para 3.

  55. 55.

    Gill 2007, pp. 153–154.

  56. 56.

    See supra 6.4.2.

  57. 57.

    Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  58. 58.

    See supra 8.5, 9.6 and 10.6.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. See also supra 6.4.2.

  60. 60.

    Higgins 1963, p. 201; Schachter 1991, p. 153.

  61. 61.

    Oil Platforms 2003, para 77. See supra 11.4.3.

  62. 62.

    Ago 1980, pp. 69, para 121; Dinstein 1992, p. 57; Gardam 1993, p. 404; Gardam 2004, pp. 156–159; Gray 2004, p. 121; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 242–243; Schmitt 2003, p. 532; Waldock 1952, p. 464. See also supra 8.14.

  63. 63.

    See supra 8.4.1–8.4.4.

  64. 64.

    Bowett 1972, p. 12; Blum 1976, pp. 233; Gross 1983, p. 478; Schachter 1985, p. 293; Baker 1987, p. 42; Jacobson 1998, pp. 13, 16.

  65. 65.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 279; Gross 1983, p. 478; Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  66. 66.

    Blum 1976, p. 233; Gross 1983, p. 478; Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  67. 67.

    Blum 1976, p. 233; Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Gross 1983, p. 478; Schachter1985, p. 293.

  68. 68.

    Blum 1976, p. 233.

  69. 69.

    Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  70. 70.

    Blum 1976, p. 233; Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Gross 1983, p. 478; Higgins 1963, p. 201; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  71. 71.

    Blum 1976, p. 235; Gross 1983, pp. 486–487; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  72. 72.

    See supra 10.2 and 10.3. For a critical opinion on the ‘accumulation of events’ theory, see Lubell 2010, pp. 51–54.

  73. 73.

    See supra 3.2.2.1 and 6.4.1. See also Kelly 2005, p. 225.

  74. 74.

    SC Res. 1368 (2001) preamble.

  75. 75.

    Franck 2002, pp. 54, 66–67.

  76. 76.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 195.

  77. 77.

    The ICJ stopped short of qualifying support of irregulars as basis for enquiring responsibility for the armed attack. Nicaragua 1986, p. 103, para 195. This view was criticized by Judge Jennings in his dissenting opinion. Ibid., p. 543. For an elaboration of the Court’s contentions and Judge Jenning’s opinion, see supra 11.4.1. See also Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić 1999, paras 131, 137. The Appeal Chamber found that overall control by the state over organized and hierarchically structured groups was sufficient to deduce state responsibility. Such ‘overall control’ resided not only in equipping, financing or training and providing operational support to the group, but also in coordinating or helping in the general planning of its military or paramilitary activity. See also: Ducheine 2008, pp. 184–188. For the difficulties of transposing norms of attribution from one international law field to another, see: Nollkaemper 2005, pp. 140–141.

  78. 78.

    Similar opinions: Feinstein 2002, p. 279; Greenwood 2003, p. 25; Schachter 1991, p. 165.

  79. 79.

    The fact that a single terrorist attack can amount to an armed attack was implicitly admitted by the Security Council in the preamble of Res. 1368 (2001) when it acknowledged the right of self-defence against terrorist attacks. Several authors agree with this view: Beard 2002, pp. 574–575; Brown 2003, pp. 24–25; Feinstein 2002, p. 279; Franck 2001, p. 840; Franck 2002, p. 54; Gill 2003, p. 30; Greenwood 2003, p. 16.

  80. 80.

    Gunaratna 2004b, pp. 10−13. See also Schachter 1991, pp. 167–168.

  81. 81.

    Gunaratna 2005, pp. 14–16.

  82. 82.

    On the interplay between secrecy and intelligence, see Gunaratna 2005, pp. 22–24.

  83. 83.

    Blum 1976, p. 233; Greenwood 1987, p. 954; Gross 1983, p. 478; Higgins 1963, p. 201; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  84. 84.

    Atwan 2006, pp. 225–226.

  85. 85.

    Brownlie points at a ‘co-ordinated and general campaign’. Brownlie 1963, p. 279. Schachter refers to a ‘pattern of terrorist attacks’ that entail a ‘series of attacks accompanied by bellicose statements’ and that are convincing indications that future attacks will occur. Schachter 1991, p. 167. Schmitt points at an ‘ongoing campaign of terror.’ Schmitt 2003, p. 547.

  86. 86.

    See supra 10.2, 10.3 and 10.5.6.

  87. 87.

    See supra 8.4.3. Greenwood 1987, p. 934; Intoccia 1987, pp. 181–182.

  88. 88.

    See supra 8.4.4. UN Doc. S/26003 (1993); Franck 2002, p. 94.

  89. 89.

    Atwan 2006, pp. 225–226.

  90. 90.

    On the challenges faced by intelligence work and investigation for identifying terrorist threats, see Borum 2005, pp. 65–67.

  91. 91.

    See supra 14.4.2.

  92. 92.

    2010 9/11 by numbers. New York Magazine.

  93. 93.

    Greenwood 2003, p. 23; Schmitt 2003, pp. 535−536.

  94. 94.

    See supra 6.4.2, 8.5, 9.6 and 10.6.

  95. 95.

    Blum 1976, p. 235; Gross 1983, pp. 486−487; Schachter 1985, p. 293.

  96. 96.

    SCOR, 24th Session, 1468th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1468 (28 March 1969) paras 18−19 (Finland expressing concern about the loss of civilian life), 34 (France expressing doubt as to the proportionality of the Israeli action); SCOR, 27th Session, 1650th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1560 (26 June 1972) para 93 (Belgium claiming that Art. 51 allows self-defence only against a single case of armed aggression); SCOR, 30th Session, 1860th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1860 (5 December 1975) para 3 (the US calling for an analysis of the Israeli airstrikes in the context of the repeated acts of violence committed by irregulars).

  97. 97.

    See supra 10.2 and 10.3.

  98. 98.

    SCOR, 24th Session, 1467th meeting, UN Doc.S/PV.1467 (27 March 1969) paras 48−49; SCOR, 30th Session, 1860th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1860 (5 December 1975) paras 3−5.

  99. 99.

    Ago 1980, pp. 69−70, para 121.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    Blum 1976, p. 235; Gross 1983, pp. 486−487; Schachter 1985, p. 293; Schmitt 2003, pp. 532−533.

  102. 102.

    See, for instance, Schmitt 2010, pp. 245−275.

  103. 103.

    SCOR, 61st Session, 5497th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.5497 (27 July 2006); Statement by the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/34 (2006); SCOR, 61st Session, 5498th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.5498 (30 July 2006) pp. 2−3; 5499th meeting, 30 July 2006, S/PV.5499; Statement by the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/35 (2006). See also Ducheine and Pouw 2009, pp. 71−72; Wrachford 2007, pp. 88−89.

  104. 104.

    Charney 2001, p. 836.

  105. 105.

    Franck 2001, p. 843.

  106. 106.

    For instance, supra 8.4.1−8.4.3 as well as 10.2 and 10.3. See also Higgins 1963, pp. 205−207.

  107. 107.

    See supra 7.3.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    See supra 7.3. Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression 1947, p. 35.

  110. 110.

    Brown 1997.

  111. 111.

    Gill 2007, p. 134.

  112. 112.

    Cassese 2005, pp. 361−362; Gray 2008, pp. 164−165; Mégret 2002, p. 376.

  113. 113.

    See supra 5.3 and 5.4.

  114. 114.

    For instance: Suárez 1944, Disputation XIII, Section 1 (6), p. 804; Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (ii), p. 172; Vattel 1964, Book II, Chap. 5, Sections 67−68, p. 135, and Book III, Chap. 1, Section 5, p. 236.

References

  • 9/11 by numbers. New York Magazine. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/n_7692/. Accessed 19 June 2010

  • Abi Saab G (1987) Cours general du droit public. Recueil des Cours 207(VII):9–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrov S (1996) Self-defence against the use of force in international law. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Atwan AB (2006) The secret history of Al-Qaida. Saqi Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Badr GM (1980) The exculpatory effect of self-defence in state responsibility. Ga J Int Comp Law 10:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker MB (1987) Terrorism and the inherent right to self-defence (a call to amend Article 51 of the United Nations Charter). Houst J Int Law 10:25–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard JM (2002) America’s new war on terror: the case for self-defence under international law. Harv J Law Pub Policy 25:559–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum Y (1976) State response to acts of terrorism. Ger Yearb of Int Law 19:223–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Boddens Hosang JFR (2010) Force protection, unit self-defence, and extended self-defence. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) Handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 415–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Borum R (2005) Counter-terrorism training post-9/11. In: Gunaratna R (ed) Combating terrorism. Marshall Cavendish, Singapore, pp 62–73

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett DW (1972) Reprisals involving recourse to armed force. Am J Int Law 66:1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D (2003) Use of force against terrorism after September 11th: state responsibility, self-defence and other responses. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 11:1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RJ (1997) Operation Catapult: naval destruction at Mers-el-Kebir. World War II http://www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm. Accessed 5 June 2009

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2005) International law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney J (2001) The use of force against terrorism and international law. Am J Int Law 95:835–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2005) Existe-t-il un droit de légitime défense en cas de simple “menace”?: une réponse au “groupe des personnalités de haut niveau” de l’ONU. In: Société française pour le droit international, Les métamorphoses de la sécurité collective: droit, pratique et enjeux stratégiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 197–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou A (2000) The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Sakkoulas, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2008) Le droit contre la guerre: l’interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducheine P (2008) Krijgsmacht, geweldgebruik & terreurbestrijding: Een onderzoek naar juridische aspecten van de rol van strijdkrachten bij de bestrijding van terrorisme. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducheine P, Pouw E (2009) Operation Change of Direction: a short survey of the legal basis and the applicable legal regimes. NL-ARMS Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies, pp 51−95

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein BA (2002) Operation Enduring Freedom: legal dimensions of an infinitely just operation. J Transnatl Law Policy 11:201–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (2001) Terrorism and the right of self-defence. Am J Int Law 95:839–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (2002) Recourse to force: state action against threats and armed attacks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman L, Gamba-Stonehouse V (1991) Signals of war: the Falklands conflict of 1982. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • GAOR: General Assembly Official Records http://documents.un.org/simple.asp

  • Gardam JG (1993) Proportionality and force in international law. Am J Int Law 87:391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG (2004) Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2005) The changing rules on the use of force in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2003) The eleventh of September and the right of self-defence. In: Heere WP (ed) Terrorism and the military international legal implications. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 23–37

    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 

  • Gray C (2008) 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 

  • Greenwood C (1987) International law and the US’ air operation against Libya. West Va Law Rev 89:933–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (2003) International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq. S.-Diego Int Law J 4:7–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey AL (1951) The 38th parallel. Foreign Aff 29:482–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross LM (1983) The legal implications of Israel’s 1982 invasion into Lebanon. Calif West Int Law J 13:458–492

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunaratna R (2004) Change or continuity. In: Gunaratna R (ed) The changing face of terrorism. Marshall Cavendish, Singapore, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunaratna R (2005) Military and non-military strategies for combating terrorism. In: Gunaratna R (ed) Combating terrorism. Marshall Cavendish, Singapore, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Intoccia GF (1987) American bombing of Libya: an international legal analysis. Case West Reserve J Int Law 19:177–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson MR (1998) War in the information age: international law, self-defence, and the problem of ‘non-armed’ attacks. J Strateg Stud 21(3):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup PC (1948) A modern law of nations: an introduction. Macmillan, New York

    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 

  • Khadduri M, Ghareeb E (1997) War in the Gulf, 1990–91: the Iraqi-Kuwait conflict and its implications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2004) Self-defence and preventive war at the beginning of the millennium. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 59(2):111−134

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachs M (1980) The development and general trends of international law in our time. Recueil des Cours 169(IV):9–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell N (2010) Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  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) UN codification of state responsibility. Oceana, New York, pp 197–286

    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 

  • Mégret F (2002) “War”? legal semantics and the move to violence. Eur J Int Law 13:361–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller DH (1928) The Peace Pact of Paris: a study of the Briand−Kellogg Treaty. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller KP et al (2006) Striking first: preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy. RAND project air force

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression: Opinion and Judgment (1947) Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality. Government Printing Office, Washington

    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 

  • Nollkaemper A (2005) Attribution of forcible acts: connections between the law on the use of force and the law of state responsibility. In: Blokker NM, Schrijver NJ (eds) The Security Council and the use of force: theory and reality, a need for change?. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 133–171

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Repertoire: Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire

  • Ruys T (2010) ‘Armed attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1985) The lawful resort to unilateral use of force. Yale J Int Law 10:291–294

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2003) Preemptive strategies in international law. Michigan J Int Law 24:513–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2010) Targeting in operational law. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) Handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh MN (1956) The right of self-defence in relation to the use of nuclear weapons. Indian Yearb Int Aff 5:3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanier JW (1959) The Truman−MacArthur controversy and the Korean war. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley GFG (1952) The Korean dilemma. Int J 7(4):278–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stueck W (1997) The Korean War: an international history. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez F (1944) The three theological virtues: on charity. Reprinted In: Brown Scott J (ed) Selections from three works of Francisco Suárez SJ (trans: Williams GL et al). Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 799–865

    Google Scholar 

  • E Vattel de (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 

  • F Vitoria de (1991) De jure belli. Reprinted in Pagden A, Lawrance J (eds) Vitoria: political writings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock CHM (1952) The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law. Recueil Des Cours 81(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 

  • Wrachford JS (2007) The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon: aggression, self-defence, or a reprisal gone bad? Airf Law Rev 60:29–90

    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 Limits of Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation