International Law and Military Policy Quiz

The principle that an attack on one NATO member is considered an attack on all members. This triggers a collective response, including the use of armed force, to restore security.

The geographic scope of the NATO Treaty's Article 5, defining where attacks trigger collective self-defense. It includes NATO member territories in Europe, North America, and specific areas like Turkey and the North Atlantic.

The actions taken by NATO members to restore security after an armed attack. This can include using military force, but it must end once the Security Council takes action to restore peace.

Attacks on NATO forces, vessels, or aircraft stationed in specific areas are also considered attacks on NATO members, triggering Article 5.

A political obligation, not a strong legal one. The US doesn't want to be dragged into another European war.

The US is not legally obligated to provide military aid to attacked countries needing help, despite theoretical commitments.

Trump expects countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, viewing those who don't as freeloaders.

The only time Article 5 of NATO was applied was after 9/11, where the US received support from allies.

Obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power for Member States under attack, stronger than the US commitment.

Both EU and NATO are under the umbrella of the UN Charter, specifically Article 51 on self-defense.

Different regional security systems exist, like the OAS for the Americas, Warsaw Pact for Eastern Europe, and African Union.

The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance includes Article 3, which is a principle of collective defense in the Americas.

A country's right to defend itself against an attack, even if it takes time to prepare.

The use of military force by a country to defend itself against an attack is justified even if the country was not immediately ready to respond. The attack itself gives the right to defend, regardless of preparedness time.

The use of force in self-defense must be proportional to the attack. This means that the force used to defend should be no more than is necessary to stop the attack and prevent further attacks.

Trump's foreign policy approach emphasizes immediate retaliation, regardless of the severity of the attack. This approach rejects the concept of proportionality.

The use of force in self-defense must be limited to the time of the attack. Once the attack is over, further use of force is not justified.

A strict interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, asserting that self-defense is only permissible in response to an actual armed attack, not a potential or anticipated threat.

A legal scholar who advocated for a restrictive interpretation of Article 51, emphasizing the need for an actual armed attack before self-defense is justified.

The doctrine that allows a state to use force in self-defense against an imminent armed attack, even if the attack has not yet occurred.

An attack that is considered to be about to happen, with a clear and immediate threat, for example, troops positioned at the border.

The principle that a state can use force in self-defense only if the attack is proportionate to the threat and all other peaceful means have been exhausted.

A historical event involving the destruction of an American ship by British forces, which led to the development of international law principles on self-defense.

Taking action to prevent an attack before it is imminent, based on the possibility of a future threat.

The difference between taking action before an attack has happened but is imminent (pre-emptive) or before a possible future threat that may not happen for weeks (preventive).

The concept that an attack on one member of a group is considered an attack on all members, triggering a collective response.

The principle that a state can use force to defend itself against an imminent threat.

The situation where a threat originates from within a territory, making it difficult to justify actions taken in self-defense under international law.

The principle that an attack on one NATO member state is treated as an attack on all member states, triggering a collective response.

The legal framework under which Israel's construction of a barrier in the occupied Palestinian territories was considered by the International Court of Justice.

The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993, aimed to establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel, shaping the context of the West Bank in relation to Israel.

The shift in Israel's primary threat in the 1990s, transitioning from state-led aggression to the rise of terrorist groups like Hamas.

The construction of a barrier by Israel along the border with the West Bank, aimed at mitigating security concerns.

The act of defending oneself against an attack, especially in international law where states can use force to defend against an imminent attack.

The use of force against a non-state actor, like a terrorist group, is considered permissible if they control territory and act like a state.

The use of force against a state or government is generally not allowed, unless there's a very strong connection between the attack and the state, like if the state is directly supporting the attack.

The use of force against other non-state actors, like non-territorial groups, is unclear. The rules are still being developed.

The UN Security Council recognized in 2014 that ISIS posed a serious threat worldwide, and it called on all countries to take action to eliminate it.

The UN Security Council resolution allowed all states to combat ISIS, but it didn't specifically say that it's legal under international law to use force against them.

The UN Charter allows for a state to use force for self-defense, but only if there's an armed attack. It doesn't expressly mention the right to self-defense against non-state actors.

The UN Security Council called on all states to eradicate safe havens and fight against ISIS ideology.