International Legal Exceptions to the Prohibition on the Use of Force

  • Ruchi Anand
Chapter

Abstract

Although the prohibition on the use of force in international relations is widely codified in international law,1 there exist two exceptions by virtue of which the use of force may be justified.2 These exceptions are the use of force by the Security Council under Chapter VII in case of a “threat to peace, breach of peace and act of aggression,” and the right to use force under Article 51 in individual or collective self-defense.

Keywords

International Relation Security Council International Peace United Nations Security Council Ballistic Missile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 20.
    Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defense (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 175, 178.Google Scholar
  2. 22.
    Schachter, Oscar, “Self-Defense and the Rule of Law,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 83, 1989, p. 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 23.
    Bowett, Derek W. Self-Defense in International Law (New York: Praeger, 1958), p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 25.
    Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defense (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), p. 179.Google Scholar
  5. 27.
    Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 30.
    For example, 1) Israel-Egypt (1956), 2) OAS-Dominican Republic (1960), 3) Israel-Lebanon (1982), 4) US-Nicaragua (1980–1986), 5) Turkey-Iraq (1995). See, Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
  7. 34.
    For example, Israel-Argentina (1960), India-Portugal (1961), Turkey-Cyprus (1974), Morocco (Mauritania)-Spain (1975), Indonesia-East-Timor (1975), Argentina-UK (Malvinas/Falklands) (1982), India-Bangladesh (1971), Tanzania-Uganda (1978), Vietnam-Kampuchea (1978–79), France-Central African Empire (1979), France, UK, US — Iraq (the Kurds, 1991), ECOMOG-Liberia, Sierra Leone (1989–1999), NATO-Yugoslavia (Kosovo) (1999). See Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 109–173. Quote from Franck, p. 52.Google Scholar
  8. 35.
    Thomas M. Franck, “Who Killed Article 2 (4)? Or Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 64, No. 4, October 1970, pp. 809–837, pp. 820–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 37.
    For further readings, see Nuclear Weapons Opinion [1996] 1 I.C.J. Rep. 226, Manfred Mohr, “Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International Law — A Few Thoughts on its Strengths and Weaknesses” (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross, 92, 94, Eric David, “The Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons” (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross 21, Luigi Condorelli, “Nuclear Weapons: A Weighty Matter for the International Court of Justice” (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross, 9, 11, Christopher Greenwood, “Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion” in Laurence Boisson de Chazoumes and Phillipe Sands (eds), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons (1999) 247, 249, Christopher Greenwood, “The Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons and the Contribution of the International Court to International Humanitarian Law” (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross 65, John McNeill, “The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases — A First Appraisal” (1997) 316 International Review of the Red Cross 103, 117, Ann Fagan Ginger, “Looking at the United Nations through the Prism of National Peace Law,” 36(2) UN Chronicle 62 (Summer 1999), Mike Moore, “World Court Says Mostly No to Nuclear Weapons,” 52(5) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 39 (Sept-Oct 1996), Douglas Holdstock and Lis Waterston, “Nuclear Weapons, a Continuing Threat to Health,” 355(9214) The Lancet 1544 (29 April 2000).Google Scholar
  10. 39.
    Jennings, R.Y. (1938) “The Caroline and McLeod Cases,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 82–99, p. 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 41.
    R. Jennings QC and A. Watts QC (eds), Oppenheim’s International Law, Ninth Edition (Pearsons Higher Education, 1992), pp. 41–42.Google Scholar
  12. 42.
    Maxon, Richard G., “Nature’s Eldest Law: A Survey of a Nation’s Right to Act in Self-Defense,” Parameters Online, US Army War College Quarterly, Autumn 1995, pp. 55–68.Google Scholar
  13. 44.
    Bowett, Derek W., Self-Defense in International Law (New York: Praeger, 1958), p. 35.Google Scholar
  14. 45.
    Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 46.
    Beres Louis Rene, “Where the Shadow Really Falls: Why Israel Must Have Nuclear Weapons,” The Brown Journal of World Affairs. Winter/Spring, Vol. IV, Issue I, 1997, p. 133.Google Scholar
  16. 47.
    Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force by States, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 48.
    Bowett, Derek W., Self-Defense in International Law (New York: Praeger, 1958), pp. 23–25.Google Scholar
  18. 54.
    Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defense (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994), pp. 193–267.Google Scholar
  19. 56.
    Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 75.Google Scholar
  20. 58.
    Arend, Anthony Clark and Robert J. Beck International Law and the Use of Force (Routledge Publishers, 1993), p. 73.Google Scholar
  21. 60.
    Quigley, John, “Israel’s Destruction of Iraq’s Nuclear Reactor: A Reply,” Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 9, Number 2, 1995, p. 444.Google Scholar
  22. 66.
    Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 101.Google Scholar
  23. 67.
    Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1977), pp. 82–85.Google Scholar
  24. 70.
    Thomas M. Franck, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 102.Google Scholar
  25. 72.
    See Anthony D’Amato, “Israel’s Air Strike Upon the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jul. 1983), pp. 584–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 73.
    Benett Ramberg, “Attacks on Nuclear Reactors: The Implications of Israel’s Strike on Osiraq,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Winter 1982–1983), pp. 653–669, p. 653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 75.
    Shai Feldman, “The Bombing of Osiraq — Revisited,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 114–142, p. 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 76.
    Yehuda Blum, UN Doc. No. S/PV.2280, June 12, 1981, p. 16. Quoted in Anthony Clark Arend, “International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2, Spring 2003, pp. 89–103; p. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 77.
    Ha’aretz (Israel), June 09, 1981, quoted in Shai Feldman, “The Bombing of Osiraq — Revisited,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 114–142, p. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 78.
    Jerusalem, Government Press Office, December 15, 1981, Quoted in Ha’aretz (Israel), June 09, 1981, Quoted in Shai Feldman, “The Bombing of Osiraq — Revisited,” International Security, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Autumn 1982), pp. 114–142, p. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 81.
    Thomas M. Franck, “Who Killed Article 2 (4)? Or Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 64, No. 4, October 1970, pp. 809–837, pp. 820–21, P. 821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 82.
    Louis Henkin, “The Reports of the Death of Article 2 (4) are Greatly Exaggerated,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 65, No. 3. July 1971, pp. 544–548, p. 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 84.
    Louis Henkin, “The Reports of the Death of Article 2 (4) are Greatly Exaggerated,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 65, No. 3. July 1971, pp. 544–548, p. 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ruchi Anand 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruchi Anand
    • 1
  1. 1.American Graduate School of International Relations and DiplomacyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations