Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Control and the Right to Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Military Operations and the Notion of Control Under International Law

  • 596 Accesses

Abstract

This contribution examines the concept of control in the context of self-defence against armed attacks carried out by armed groups. After a brief introduction of the relevant questions, the second section delineates briefly the concept of attribution in the context of state responsibility, the relevance of control within that framework and the various ‘control tests’ formulated in this regard. The third section sets these notions against the reality in the international arena when it comes to the exercise of self-defence against armed attacks carried out by armed groups. The fourth section discusses the relevance of control, attribution and international responsibility in the context of self-defence against armed groups. The contribution’s conclusion is that the concept of control is auxiliary, but extrinsic to the inherent essence of the right of self-defence.

The views expressed herein are entirely the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of the author’s current or former employers.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    International Court of Justice (ICJ), Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment, 27 June 1986 (Nicaragua case), para 176.

  2. 2.

    Gill 2007, pp. 123–125; Gill 2015a, pp. 221–223.

  3. 3.

    US National Strategy for Counterterrorism 2018, p. 7.

  4. 4.

    US National Strategy for Counterterrorism 2018, p. 7.

  5. 5.

    US National Strategy for Counterterrorism 2018, p. 8.

  6. 6.

    The topic of state responsibility was selected by the International Law Commission (ILC) as suitable for codification in 1949. Four years later, in 1953, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the ILC to codify the principles of international law governing state responsibility (Resolution 799 (VIII) of 7 December 1953) and two years later, in 1955, the Commission began the study of state responsibility by appointing its first Special Rapporteur on the topic. For a summary of the ensuing work and the final adoption of the Articles, see ILC, Summaries of the Work of the International Law Commission. http://legal.un.org/ilc/summaries/9_6.shtml. Accessed 17 November 2018.

  7. 7.

    The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereafter: DASR), as adopted by the International Law Commission in December 2001, were attached to the UNGA Resolution UN Doc. A/RES/56/83, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, 12 December 2001.

  8. 8.

    (Commentary for Article 2) DASR, p. 34.

  9. 9.

    (Commentary for Article 2) DASR, p. 35.

  10. 10.

    (Commentary for Article 2) DASR, p. 38.

  11. 11.

    (Commentary for Article 2) DASR, p. 38.

  12. 12.

    (Commentary for Article 8) DASR, p. 47.

  13. 13.

    (Commentary for Article 8) DASR, p. 47.

  14. 14.

    Boon 2014, pp. 2, 4–5.

  15. 15.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 115; ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007 (Bosnian Genocide case), para 397.

  16. 16.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, paras 107–112; Crawford 2013, p. 125.

  17. 17.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 111.

  18. 18.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 111.

  19. 19.

    ICJ, Bosnian Genocide case, paras 389, 393, 395.

  20. 20.

    ICJ, Bosnian Genocide case, para 400.

  21. 21.

    (Commentary for Article 8) DASR, p. 47.

  22. 22.

    (Commentary for Article 8) DASR, p. 47.

  23. 23.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 195.

  24. 24.

    UNGA Resolution 3314 UN Doc. A/RES/3314(XXIX) (14 December 1974) Article 3(g). See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 210, 249–251.

  25. 25.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 195.

  26. 26.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 195.

  27. 27.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, para 191 referring to UNGA Resolution 2625 UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (24 October 1970) Part I.

  28. 28.

    For a brief overview of such opinions, see Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 261–262.

  29. 29.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jennings, p. 543.

  30. 30.

    ICJ, Nicaragua case, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, para 171.

  31. 31.

    International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Appeals Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999, paras 118–120, 137, 145.

  32. 32.

    See for instance: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, para 139; ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (DRC v Uganda), Judgement, 19 December 2005, para 160.

  33. 33.

    ICJ, Bosnian Genocide case, para 406. For a critical view of the Court’s judgment, see Cassese 2007.

  34. 34.

    ICJ, Bosnian Genocide case, para 406. For a critical view of the Court’s judgment, see Cassese 2007.

  35. 35.

    For an overview, see Becker 2006, pp. 66–82.

  36. 36.

    GAOR, 1st Emergency Special Session, UN Doc. A/PV.562 (1956), paras 138–145. See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 204–205; Ruys 2010, pp. 394–396.

  37. 37.

    SCOR, 827th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.827 (15 July 1958) para 71. See also Ruys 2010, pp. 396–398.

  38. 38.

    UN Yearbook (1968), p. 211.

  39. 39.

    UN Yearbook (1970), pp. 227–228, 239; UN Yearbook (1972), pp. 157–159.

  40. 40.

    SCOR, 1486th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1486 (18 July 1969), paras 69–70; 1516th meeting, S/PV.1516 (4 December 1969) para 103; 1524th meeting, S/PV.1524 (18 December 1969), paras 73–74. See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, p. 208.

  41. 41.

    SCOR, 1486th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1486 (18 July 1969), para 68.

  42. 42.

    SCOR, 1516th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1516 (4 December 1969), paras 113-115; UN Yearbook (1969), p. 138.

  43. 43.

    SCOR, 2684th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2684 (22 May 1986), p. 22. See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 208–209.

  44. 44.

    UN Yearbook (1984), p. 181; SCOR, 2684th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2684 (22 May 1986), paras 22–23.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. regarding Portugal: UNSC Res 273 (1969); 294 (1971). Regarding South Africa: UNSC Res 387 (1976); 447 (1979); 466 (1980); 527 (1982); 545 (1983); 546 (1984). Regarding Israel: UNSC Res 265 (1969); 279 (1970); 313 (1972); 332 (1973); 450 (1979); 467 (1980).

  46. 46.

    Gill and Tibori-Szabó 2019, p. 478.

  47. 47.

    SCOR, 1466th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1466 (27 March 1969) paras 30, 62, 69; UN Doc S/9387 (12 August 1969); See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 205–207.

  48. 48.

    Tibori-Szabó 2011, p. 206; Ruys 2010, pp. 400–401; Tibori-Szabó 2015, p. 77.

  49. 49.

    UNSC Res 270 (1969); SC Res 279, 285 (1970); SC Res 313, 316 (1972).

  50. 50.

    SCOR, 2615th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2615 (4 October 1985) para 252. See also an earlier similar statement by the US: SCOR, 1860th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.1860 (5 December 1975) paras 3-5 (the US vetoing a SC resolution condemning Israel on the basis that progress could not be achieved with one-sided resolutions that left Israel believing that it was the victim of discrimination and bias on the part of the United Nations).

  51. 51.

    SCOR, 2610-2611th, 2613th and 2615th meetings, S/PV.2610-2611, S/PV.2613, S/PV.2615 (2-4 October 1985). See also Tams 2009, pp. 367–368; Tibori-Szabó 2015, p. 78.

  52. 52.

    See for instance: UN Doc. S/25843 (25 May 1993); UN Doc. S/1994/1273 (9 November 1994); UN Doc. S/1999/420 (13 April 1999); UN Doc. S/1999/781 (12 July 1999); UN Doc. S/2000/216 (13 March 2000); UN Doc. S/2001/271 (22 March 2001); UN Doc. S/2001/381 (18 April 2001). On at least one occasion, Iran argued that it was forced to take defensive measures due to Iraq’s inability to exercise control over its territory. See UN Doc. S/1996/602. See also Tams 2009, p. 380.

  53. 53.

    UN Doc. S/1998/780 (1998). See also Tibori-Szabó 2011, p. 219.

  54. 54.

    Tibori-Szabó 2015, p. 79; Ruys 2010, pp. 426–427.

  55. 55.

    UNSC Res 1368 (12 September 2001); UNSC Res 1373 (28 September 2011). See also Gill and Tibori-Szabó 2019, p. 480.

  56. 56.

    UN Doc. S/2001/946 (7 October 2001).

  57. 57.

    UN Doc. S/2001/946 (7 October 2001).

  58. 58.

    Gill 2003, pp. 30–32; Ruys 2010, pp. 436–437.

  59. 59.

    Ruys and Verhoeven 2005, pp. 315–316; Tams 2009, pp. 385–386.

  60. 60.

    Trapp 2009, pp. 1054–1055.

  61. 61.

    UN Yearbook (1972), p. 158; SCOR, 2071st meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2071 (17 March 1978), para 53; UN Yearbook (1979), p. 332.

  62. 62.

    SCOR, 2292nd meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.2292 (17 July 1981) para 54. See also Ruys 2010, pp. 401–402.

  63. 63.

    See for instance: UNSC Res 280 (1970); SC Res 316 (1972); SC Res 332 (1973); SC Res 450 (1979); SC Res 467 (1980).

  64. 64.

    At first, such incursions were condoned by Iraq, but after Turkey sided with the allied forces in the First Gulf War, Iraq began condemning Turkish incursions on its territory. See Antonopoulos 1996, p. 49; Ruys 2010, p. 430.

  65. 65.

    See for instance the following letters from the Chargé d’affaires of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the Secretary-General: UN Doc S/1995/605 (24 July 1995); UN Doc. S/1996/479 (27 June 1996); UN Doc. S/1996/836 (7 October 1996); UN Doc S/1997/7 (3 January 1997). These actions were criticised by the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement. UN Doc. S/1996/796 (24 September 1996); UN Doc. S/1997/416 (30 May 1997); UN Doc. S/1997/429 (2 June 1997), p. 3; UN Doc. S/2000/580 (16 June 2000) para 137.

  66. 66.

    UN Doc S/1995/605 (24 July 1995), p. 1.

  67. 67.

    UN Doc. S/2002/1012 (11 September 2002).

  68. 68.

    UN Doc. S/2002/1012 (11 September 2002). See also Deeks 2012, p. 486; Tibori-Szabó 2015, p. 83.

  69. 69.

    UN Doc. S/2006/515 (12 July 2006).

  70. 70.

    UN Doc. S/2006/515 (12 July 2006).

  71. 71.

    UN Doc. S/2006/515 (12 July 2006).

  72. 72.

    SCOR, 5489th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.5489 (14 July 2006), p. 6.

  73. 73.

    SCOR, 5489th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.5489 (14 July 2006), pp. 12, 14, 15, 17; 5492nd meeting, S/PV.5492 (20 July 2006), p. 3; 5493rd meeting, S/PV.5493 (21 July 2006), pp. 16–17, 19 and S/PV.5493 (Resumption1) (21 July 2006), pp. 9, 19, 27, 28, 39, 41.

  74. 74.

    SCOR, 5489th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.5489 (14 July 2006), pp. 10–11; 549th meeting, S/PV.5493 (Resumption1) (21 July 2006), pp. 26, 30, 36, 37.

  75. 75.

    Comunicado No. 081 del Ministeria de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, Bogota (2 March 2008). http://historico.presidencia.gov.co/comunicados/2008/marzo/81.html. Accessed 30 December 2018. See also Ruys 2010, pp. 462–464; Deeks 2012, pp. 537–539.

  76. 76.

    UN Doc. S.2008/177 (14 March 2008); Organization of the American States, Convocation of the meeting of consultation of ministers of foreign affairs and appointment of a commission, 5 March 2008, Doc. OEA/Ser.G, CP.RES.930 (1632/08). See also ‘Colombia raid ‘must be condemned’’, BBC News, 6 March 2008.

  77. 77.

    UN Doc. S/2011/646 (18 October 2011). See also Olsen 2018, 39, 43–44.

  78. 78.

    UN Doc. S/2014/695 (23 September 2014).

  79. 79.

    UN Doc. S/2014/440 (25 June 2014); UN Doc. S/2014/691 (20 September 2014). See also Gill and Tibori-Szabó 2019, p. 486.

  80. 80.

    SCOR, 7387th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.7387 (18 February 2015), p. 7.

  81. 81.

    UN Doc. S/2017/456 (27 May 2017).

  82. 82.

    ICJ, Bosnian Genocide case, para 406.

  83. 83.

    O’Connell 2013, pp. 380, 383; Tladi 2013, p. 572.

  84. 84.

    Gill and Tibori-Szabó 2019, p. 499.

  85. 85.

    See d’Aspremont et al. 2015; Trapp 2015.

  86. 86.

    d’Aspremont et al. 2015, p. 66.

  87. 87.

    For a succinct description of the emergence of the prohibition to wage war in the late 19th and early 20th century and the adoption of several relevant instruments, such as the League of Nations Covenant, the Locarno treaties and the Kellogg-Briand Pact, see Tibori-Szabó 2011, pp. 82–91.

  88. 88.

    Twiss 1860, p. 11.

  89. 89.

    Miller 1928, pp. 213–214.

  90. 90.

    Webster 1841, pp. 1132–1133. US Secretary of State Daniel Webster writing to the British Minister at Washington Henry Fox in the aftermath of the Caroline incident.

  91. 91.

    For instance, the Caroline incident involved the exercise of self-defence against insurgents, but the ensuing correspondence did not dwell on the significance of this aspect. The controversial issue was instead the alleged excessiveness of the response of the British forces.

  92. 92.

    Oppenheim 1905, pp. 178–179.

  93. 93.

    Gill 2003, pp. 32–33; Gill 2015b, pp. 738, 743.

  94. 94.

    UNGA Res 2625 UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (24 October 1970) Part I.

  95. 95.

    Island of Palmas (Netherlands, United States) 1928, p. 839. http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-871.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2018; ICJ, Corfu Channel (UK v Albania) 1949, pp. 22–23. https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/1/001-19490409-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf. Accessed 18 October 2018. See also Gill and Tibori-Szabó 2019, p. 494.

  96. 96.

    Trapp 2009, p. 1053.

References

  • Antonopoulos A (1996) The Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq of March-April 1995 and the international law on the use of force. Journal of Armed Conflict Law 1:33–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker T (2006) Terrorism and the state: rethinking the rules of state responsibility. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon KE (2014) Are control tests fit for the future? The slippage problem in attribution doctrines. Melbourne Journal of International Law 15:1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2007) The Nicaragua and Tadić tests revisited in light of the ICJ judgment on genocide in Bosnia. European Journal of International Law 18(4):649–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2013) State responsibility: The general part. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J, Nollkaemper A, Plakokefalos I, Ryngaert CMJ (2015) Sharing responsibility between non-state actors and states in international law. Netherlands International Law Review 62(1):49–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (DASR), as adopted by the International Law Commission in December 2001, attached to the UNGA Resolution UN Doc. A/RES/56/83, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, 12 December 2001. Via www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/56/83. Accessed 17 November 2018.

  • Deeks A (2012) ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense. Vanderbilt Journal of International Law 52:483–550.

    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. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2007) The temporal dimension of self-defense: anticipation, pre-emption, prevention and immediacy. In: Schmitt MN, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 113–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2015a) Legal basis of the right of self-defence under the UN Charter and under customary international law. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) The Handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2015b) When does self-defence end? In: Weller M (ed) The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 737–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD, Tibori-Szabó K (2019) Twelve key questions on self-defense against non-state actors. International Legal Studies 95:467–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller DH (1928) The Peace Pact of Paris: A study of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. GP Putnam’s Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell ME (2013) Dangerous departures. American Journal of International Law 107:380–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen GR (2018) The October 2011 Kenyan invasion of Somalia: Fighting al-Shabaab or defending institutional interests? Journal of Contemporary African Studies 36(1):39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1905) International law: A treatise. Vol. 1. Longman, Green and Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2010) Armed attack and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T, Verhoeven S (2005) Attacks by private actors and the right of self-defence. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 10:289–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ (2009) The use of force against terrorists. European Journal of International Law 20:359–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibori-Szabó K (2011) Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence: Essence and Limits under International Law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibori-Szabó K (2015) The ‘unwilling or unable’ test and the law of self-defence. In: Paulussen C, Takács T, Lazić V, Van Rompuy B (eds) Fundamental rights in international and European law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tladi D (2013) The nonconsenting innocent state: the problem with Bethlehem’s principle. American Journal of International Law 107:570–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp KN (2009) The use of force against terrorists: a reply to Christian J Tams. European Journal of International Law 20(4):1049–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp KN (2015) Shared responsibility and non-state terrorist actors. Netherlands International Law Review 63:141–160.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Strategy for Counterterrorism (2018) The White House, October 2018, at www.dni.gov/files/NCTC/documents/news_documents/NSCT.pdf. Accessed 3 December 2018.

  • Webster D (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 (1857). James Ridgway and Sons, London, 29:1129–1139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kinga Tibori-Szabó

Authors
  1. Kinga Tibori-Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kinga Tibori-Szabó .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chambers (Trial Division), International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Rogier Bartels

  2. Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, The Netherlands

    Jeroen C. van den Boogaard

  3. Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, The Netherlands

    Paul A. L. Ducheine

  4. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Eric Pouw

  5. Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, The Netherlands

    Joop Voetelink

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tibori-Szabó, K. (2021). Control and the Right to Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors. In: Bartels, R., van den Boogaard, J., Ducheine, P., Pouw, E., Voetelink, J. (eds) Military Operations and the Notion of Control Under International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-395-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-395-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-394-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-395-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation