The Legality of the use of Armed Force by Israel in Lebanon—June 1982

Abstract

The Government of the United States cannot be expected to suffer the indefinite continuance of existing lawless conditions along its border, which expose its citizens to maltreatment at the hands of ruffianly elements of the Mexican population, which their Government seems unable to control. …No violation of the national sovereignty of Mexico was intended by this expedition [into Mexico by United States troops to hunt down bandits]. It was despatched upon the hot trail of the bandits in question with the sole object of punishing them …, and of preventing future activities of a similar nature upon our frontier…United States Secretary of State Lansing, 26 August 1919The entrance of Israeli forces into Lebanon in June 1982 (“Operation Peace for Galilee”) raises far-reaching legal issues that transcend this particular occurrence. One of the issues raised in this context is the legality of the use of armed force by a State to counter terrorists directing their attacks against its citizens from the territory of another State. Israel considered the action it took against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Lebanon to be legitimate self-defence, directed not against the territorial integrity of Lebanon, but rather against the armed PLO terrorists operating from it against Israel. Others viewed Israel's actions as aggression, and Israel as an invader violating Lebanon's sovereignty. This invasion, it was asserted, was contrary to international law.