Force In International Law Research Articles

Examining the Legality of the Use of Force in International Law

This article examines the legality of the use of force in international law. The article revealed that faith in the UN may weaken when it fails to act in contexts where its Charter requires or implies it should, or when its actions fail to achieve the intended results. As a result, it is critical for the UN’s integrity and vitality that it is willing and able to act in circumstances that warrant its intervention. If there was a successful alternative to meeting global aims, it would deter states from taking matters into their own hands. This leads to the conclusion that we can welcome illegal but clearly justified action, or what we might call ‘legitimate’ action, under certain specified circumstances. The article proposes several broad areas where the UN could rationally undergo reform. As the maintainer of peace and security, it would be unwise for the UN to engage ‘with incomplete and incremental change.’ The UNSC needs ‘greater credibility, legitimacy, representation, effectiveness, and enhanced capacity and willingness to act in defense of the common peace.’ Therefore, the article advocates for the development of a legal doctrine of humanitarian intervention. A suggested criterion is the existence of a supreme humanitarian emergency, the use of force as a last resort, and the achievement of a positive humanitarian outcome. If the UNSC can identify these criteria for lawful humanitarian intervention, it would be wiser to authorize force. The use of force would then be under central control, as opposed to unilateral state action with a potentially undefined mandate. Keywords: International law, Justification, Legitimacy, UN Charters, Use of force.

Use of Force in International Law: an Appraisal of the United Nations’ Intervention in Korea and Iraq

Use of Force in International Law: an Appraisal of the United Nations’ Intervention in Korea and Iraq

Russia's Interventions in Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine in the Framework of the Use of Force in International Law

Rusya’nın son müdahalesinin yarattığı Ukrayna Krizi ile birlikte uluslararası hukuk yeniden sorgulanmaya başlanmıştır. Uluslararası hukukta kuvvet kullanımı üzerinden yapılan bu sorgulama devletlerin çeşitlenen müdahale gerekçeleri üzerinden ilerlemektedir. Uluslararası hukukta kuvvet kullanımının belirli istisnaları olmasına rağmen zamanla devletlerin kuvvet kullanma nedenleri çeşitlenmiştir. İşte bu çalışma, Rusya’nın Gürcistan, Kırım ve Ukrayna müdahalelerinin gerekçelerine odaklanacaktır. Dolayısıyla, çalışma ilk olarak kuvvet kullanımının değişen içeriği üzerinde duracak, sonrasında ise Rusya özelinde, yapılan üç müdahalenin nedenleri üzerinden bir karşılaştırma yapacaktır.

Quashing protests abroad: The CSTO’s intervention in Kazakhstan

ABSTRACT The Collective Security Treaty Organization’s military intervention in Kazakhstan in January 2022 quashed the unfolding nonviolent protest movement in the country. Nonetheless, the intervention raised few concerns with regard to the prohibition of the use of force in international law. Among states and scholars, the invitation issued by the Kazakh president was regarded as sufficient to justify the intervention. This article critically assesses this understanding. The intervening states limited the Kazakh people’s right to self-determination and violated protesters’ human rights. Against this backdrop, the authors develop an argument for why international law prohibits states from intervening in another state in order to quash nonviolent protest movements. While the intervention in Kazakhstan serves as the primary example, the argument also applies more broadly and is of particular importance as nonviolent protest movements have a central role in spreading democracy and advancing human rights.

An Alternative to the Use of Force in International Law and Arab-Islamic Sulh for the Yemen Armed Conflict

This article explores Arab-Islamic sulh (reconciliation) which is known to be rooted in religious (sectarian) and cultural dynamics, as well as tribal practices of the Arab societies. For this purpose, this article highlights the limitations of the conflict resolution approaches now in use as contextually unsuitable. It further draws attention to the continuing vitality of Arab-Islamic rituals of reconciliation sulh and identifies ways that mediators (US, UK UAE, and others) might benefit from an appraisal of such rituals. To counteract tribal experiences of disempowerment and temper the power-political undertones of the conflicts, mediators would consciously integrate principles and symbolic practices inherent in indigenous Middle Eastern reconciliation methodologies of sulh, alongside musalaha (settlement). Sulh exemplifies key Arab-Islamic cultural values that should be looked at figuratively and literally for insight into how to approach conflict resolution in the Saudi/Yemen armed conflicts. Therefore, as an alternative to the use of force, the sulh would be provisioned to leverage its capability to accommodate political interests that underpin the conflicts as well, with a view to effective resolution.

The War in Ukraine and the prohibition of the use of force in International Law

Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine gave rise to a number of problems in the field of international law. The study analyzes only one of the many aspects of this issue – the challenge of Russia’s armed aggression in relation to the principle of prohibition of the use of force in international law. The study reveals the influence of Russia’s war against Ukraine on the functioning of the principle of the prohibition of force in international law, its historical formation, as well as other aspects of the operation of the principles of law.

Russell Buchan and Nicolas Tsagourias, Regulating the Use of Force in International Law. Stability and Change, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA, 2021, 288 pp.

"Russell Buchan and Nicolas Tsagourias, Regulating the Use of Force in International Law. Stability and Change, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA, 2021, 288 pp." published on 09 Dec 2022 by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias, Regulating the Use of Force in International Law. Stability and Change

The fascinating topic of the use of force has merited the attention of several scholars and attempts to address its complexity are not few. However, as Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias say at the beginning of their book, ‘no topic is more emotive or attracts more attention in international law and relations than the use of force’ (Introduction, xvi). The most recent invasion of Ukraine has no doubt raised questions of whether the current legal framework on use of force has an enduring legacy. Some of the questions are certainly not new, but in this comprehensive book Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias explore in a refreshingly broad way how state practice and opinio juris, the Courts and academics have been challenging some traditional notions associated with the regulation of the use of force. For that purpose, the authors invite the reader to dig into the world of the regulation...

Aggression in International Law: The Crime of a State and Criminal Responsibility of an Individual

The paper covers unlawful use of force in international law by states to explore the general concept and definition of aggression in the law of state responsibility and for criminal responsibility of individuals. The genesis of the concept of aggression in the XX century is analyzed. The paper describes problems that arose in defining the aggression that accompanied the efforts to ban any threat of force and the use of force by international law provisions, which was over with adopting the United Nations Charter in 1945. The responsibility of a State for the internationally wrongful act in question was accompanied by the criminal responsibility of individuals for the same international crime. The analysis of cases before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and the analysis of the work of the United Nations Security Council, reveal their practice in terms of which of the above authorities has priority in finding State responsibility? Equally, we seek to identify the weaknesses concerning the definition of aggression adopted as an expression of political compromise in Annex to the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution, and whether the 2010 Kampala definition contained in the amendments to the Rome Statute may be considered inadequate in trying of the International Criminal Court to fight impunity and to participate in the prevention of future crimes of aggression through its work and actions. Ultimately, is the aggression any threat or violation of international peace and security by the state? If aggression is a true-crime of a State, does that mean that only the state's highest officials will be criminally responsible for the crime in question?

Regulating the Use of Force in International Law: Stability and Change. By Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias

Dr Buchan and Professor Tsagourias have added a new monograph on the use of force to the long list of publications on this topic. The book combines coverage of the usual topics on this subject—including the prohibition of the use of force, the right of self-defence, the UN collective security system and humanitarian intervention—alongside some topics not usually covered in a work on the jus ad bellum. These include the role of non-state actors within the law regulating the use of force, the law on ‘cyber warfare’, the role of law and morality, and UN peacekeeping operations. The authors bring their own considerable expertise and experience in teaching and publishing on topics covered and related to the those in the book. There is no need to argue the relevance of the topic itself, as any glance at the news media will confirm, with numerous armed conflicts ongoing and others brewing and capable of erupting at relatively short notice. Likewise, the controversies on various issues, ranging from permissible reactions to humanitarian crises to the applicability of the law relating to the use of force to new threats and technologies continue to fuel debate within the disciplines of international law and relations. As such it is to be welcomed that two authors with an established reputation within the field should add their contribution to the debates on these issues.

Contemporary humanitarians: Latin America and the ordering of responses to humanitarian crises

Latin American foreign-policy elites defend the principle of non-intervention to shield their countries’ autonomy. By 2005, however, most Latin American foreign policy elites accepted the easing of limits on the use of force in international law. They supported the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which regulates the use of force to protect populations from mass atrocities. The paper presents a comparison of the Brazilian, Chilean, and Mexican positions in the R2P debates to understand why they supported this norm. During the debates leading to the emergence of R2P, these elites questioned a central premise of liberal internationalism: the idea that great powers would restrain their use of military force as part of their commitment to a liberal international order (LIO). Using Republican international political theory, I argue that these Latin American foreign-policy elites viewed a restricted humanitarian-intervention norm as a new defence against great powers interfering in developing countries. Instead of trusting that great powers would restrain their actions, these elites advocated for a humanitarian-intervention norm that would prevent uncontrolled humanitarian interventions.

PRINCIPLE OF NON-USE OF FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.

This study explores the pattern of principles of non-use of force or threat of force in international law. This principle is studied from the perspective of international treaties and customary law through the recent state practice. This research underlines the prohibition of the use of force and submits the international mechanism of this principle including peaceful settlements of conflicts. Study provides an estimation of application of this principle.

Global Administrative Governance: Liberalization of Government Procurement in Third World Countries

Globalization and the rise of global governance are transforming the structure of International law. From the perspective of the classical, interstate consent-based international law, global governance may still appear merely as a quantitative increase in international legal instruments. On the other hand, some requirement for adoption international law is needed, particularly through a classic scheme for binding force of international law into national legal system. Classic method means that such agreement which is concluded by states. One of the interstate consent based international law is Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) which legally binding agreement in the WTO focusing on the subject of government procurement. Since GPA is a multilateral treaty administered by a Committee on Government Procurement, which includes the WTO Members that are parties to the GPA, and thus have rights and obligations under the Agreement. In fact, the majority of member state, particularly most developing countries are not party the GPA, so there is no legal obligation to observe all the provision of GPA. It seems to be a great obstacle for developing countries to adopt the GPA provisions by several reasons In sum, global administrative governance takes some roles to reform some legal frame works in developing countries. A great contribution produced some positive legal reforms in term of the achievement of competitive and transparent government procurement.

Cyberattack and the Use of Force in International Law

This article examines how the existing law of armed conflict may be applied or adapted to meet the challenges posed by cyber-attacks. It begins with a definition of cyber-attacks, cyberexploitation and cyberespionage and their differences. The article discusses how cyber-attacks are regulated by the existing body of laws such as the United Nations Charter, International humanitarian Law (IHL), international treaties and domestic laws. It notes that the existing law addresses only a small fraction of potential cyber-attacks. IHL, for example, provides a useful framework for a very small number of cyber-attack that amounts to an armed attack or that take place within the context of armed conflict. The article concludes that, since cyber-attacks are global in nature, there is need for a new international legal framework to more effectively deal with the challenges posed by cyber-attacks.

International law on the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force

The Article presents an analysis of the main provisions of the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force proclaimed in the UN Charter and amended by Helsinki Final Act. The UN Charter puts first the principle of non-use of force or the threat of force among the main principles of international law, which is a fundamental factor in ensuring peace and safety throughout the world. The only mechanism for making decisions on the use of military force as the final argument can only be the UN Charter. The problem of the use of force was and remains one of the most complex and debatable in international law. The article provides a comparative and legal analysis of sources of international law governing the use of force or the threat of force in international law and individual cases in the practice of international relations. Russia does everything possible to prevent the use of military force in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, destabilization of the situation in the world, and builds international relations on the principles of international law for ensuring the reliable and equal security of states.

International Court of Justice and the threat of use of force

The subject of this research is the threat of use of force in the practice of interpretation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Special attention is paid to the analysis of formulations of court rulings regarding violations of the principle of non-use of force and threat of use of force. The practice of the ICJ on interpretation of the threat of use of force is directly tied to the practice of the Court on interpretation of the concept of use of force. The research explores rulings on interpretation of the threat of use of force in international law, dissenting opinions of judges, as well as position and arguments of sides. The work reflects the context of circumstances that served as the basis for Court’s decisions. In author’s opinion, major role is played by the circumstances contributing to the Court’s identification and interpretation of international law pertaining to the threat of use. This is first research within Russian doctrine dedicated to practice of interpretation of the threat of use of force in international law by the International Court of Justice. The conclusions reflected in this article allow fully formulate the Court’s stance on the threat of use of force.

Is the Killing of Qasem Soleimani by the United States of America Legal Under International Law?

General Qasem Soleimani, the Commander of Iran’s Quds Force was killed on 3rd January 2020 near Baghdad airport by a US drone strike. In the wake of the killing which has escalated tensions in the ever-volatile Middle East, one of the predominant questions has been on the legality or otherwise of the US strike. As a justification of the strikes, Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and other senior officials of the Trump administration have maintained that shortly before his killing, General Soleimani was planning multiple attacks on US military bases and diplomats in the Middle East. They also argue that the planned attacks on US interests were imminent and the killing was to disrupt the planned attacks and to deter future attacks. Trump also stated that the attack was not to start a war with Iran but to avoid a war. The argument advanced by the US is that of self-defense which is a legitimate use of force in international law. While the US is yet to make the evidence of the imminence of the planned attacks public, the imminent attacks argument is advanced to confer legality on the killing. Assuming there was an imminent threat of attack on US interests as claimed by Trump and senior administration officials, the question is whether the imminence of the planned attacks confers on the US a right of preemptive self-defense which renders the killing legal under international. This article seeks to answer this question through an analysis of the current normative order on use of force and the doctrine of self defense under international law.

최근 국가실행을 통해 비춰본 국제법상 무력 사용으로서 사이버 오퍼레이션

최근 국가실행을 통해 비춰본 국제법상 무력 사용으로서 사이버 오퍼레이션

From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

Rethinking the Legality of Intervention by Invitation: Toward Neutrality

Abstract The article re-examines one of the most established and classical doctrines in international law, with a massive body of literature—intervention by invitation. The doctrine is straightforward and intuitive, and therefore compelling. Since the use of force or intervention in the domestic affairs of a state is prohibited, the consent of the ‘state’ itself could, naturally, eliminate the wrongfulness of the act. There is contention that the ‘government-preference’ principle of intervention by invitation affords a ‘clear alternative’ to external intervention authorized by the Security Council (‘UNSC’)[ Wippman (1996, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 7, 209)]. Others, however, stressing the momentous nature of current events, believe that ‘democratic legitimacy’ is fundamental. The present author finds both approaches inadequate. In many cases, the complexity of intervention by invitation in both cases is, inevitably, reduced to the issue of recognition: ‘Who can speak for a state?’[We can see such tendency in many works on the topic such as: 2016, Byrne, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 3, 97, 100; Wippman (1996, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 7, 217–22; Oppenheim and Lauterpacht, International Law, 7th edition (Longmans Green 1952), 249; or Fox, ‘Intervention by Invitation’ in Weller M (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford University Press 2015), 831–35.]. The latter is a highly political question. The law, then, is left undetermined, and actions are explained by the government’s political preferences and its rhetorical appeal to so-called international community values [Falk (ed), The International Law of Civil War (The John Hopkins Press 1971), 28]. Inspired by general neutrality approach, the author will evoke available theoretical principles and state practices to form a theory of the Equality of internal actors, (hereinafter ‘Equality theory’), in the hope of proving the relevance, reliability, consistency and overall superiority of this theory in dealing with the legality of intervention by invitation.