Public International Law GOVT 2047 - Use of Force

The right to use force to protect oneself or one's property from imminent harm.

A situation where one state intervenes in the internal affairs of another state, often to protect civilians or stop human rights abuses.

The right of a people to determine their own political status and to govern themselves freely.

A legal system that governs relations between states; it encompasses treaties, customary law, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It settles legal disputes between states.

The right of a state within its own territory to exercise authority without interference from other states.

The Montevideo Convention, 1933, establishes the characteristics of a state, including territory, permanent population, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states.

The Island of Palmas case (1928) highlights the principle that a state has the exclusive right to exercise its authority within its territory.

The acquisition of territory through conquest is no longer considered legal under international law after World War II.

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by states against each other's territorial integrity or political independence.

The inherent right of a state to defend itself against an armed attack, until the Security Council can intervene.

The UN Security Council is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

Members of the UN must report to the Security Council any actions taken in self-defense during an armed attack.

An attack involving the use of armed forces by one state against another, including actions by regular troops crossing borders or the deployment of armed groups by a state.

The ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case (1986) recognized the Charter provisions on self-defense as dynamic and open to interpretation based on state practice and customary international law.

The ICJ ruling in the Nicaragua case (1986) clarified that the right to self-defense under Article 51 applies only in cases of actual armed attacks against a state.

A school of thought that argues Article 51 allows for a broader right to self-defense beyond just responding to armed attacks, drawing on customary international law.

A school of thought that argues Article 51 restricts the right to self-defense solely to cases of armed attacks, rejecting any broader interpretation.

The ICJ's ruling on the meaning of 'armed attack' includes not only direct military action but also actions by armed groups or mercenaries acting on behalf of a state, if these actions are sufficiently severe.

The Nicaragua case where the ICJ ruled that the US's actions in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua did not constitute an armed attack under Article 51.

Armed attack doesn't include providing weapons or support to rebels. Although such assistance might be considered a threat or intervention.

The idea that states can attack first if they believe an attack is coming. It's based on attacking first being the best defense.

The Caroline case is a well-known precedent for anticipatory self-defense, but its interpretation is debated.

The Caroline test states that preemptive self-defense must be immediate, overwhelming and without other options. This strict test applies to preemptive actions.

The Caroline test is a 19th-century customary international law principle that emphasizes immediate necessity in preemptive self-defense.

The Caroline case is a specific example of practice between two countries, not a universally established rule of customary international law.

The idea that a state can use force against another state if a future attack is feared, even if no attack has happened yet. It requires a high level of certainty about the threat.

The legal principle where a state can use force to defend itself or its citizens from an ongoing armed attack. This right is limited by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The principle of necessity in self-defense means a state can only use force if there is an actual armed attack against it. There should be no other reasonable option available to stop the attack.

The principle of proportionality in self-defense means that the defensive action must be proportionate to the threat. The force used should be commensurate with the attack and not excessive.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in the Nicaragua Case that the use of force by the US against Nicaragua was not proportionate to the alleged threat, thus violating the principle of proportionality in self-defense.

For a state to use force in self-defense, it must be facing an actual armed attack against itself. The use of force is justified only in response to an ongoing attack.

The concept of a state acting in self-defense against a potential future attack is generally not accepted under customary international law. It is considered a violation of international norms and often leads to international condemnation.

The consistent pattern of states' behavior after the UN's establishment indicates that they do not accept anticipatory self-defense. This practice weakens the legal basis for anticipatory self-defense.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the US violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors.

This case highlights the ICJ's understanding of 'armed attack' as including actions by armed groups or mercenaries if their actions are sufficiently severe.

The ICJ ruled that supporting rebels does not constitute an armed attack, even though it can be considered intervention.

The Caroline test states that preemptive self-defense must be immediate, overwhelming and without other options. This strict test applies to preemptive actions.

The use of force by states against each other is generally prohibited under international law, except in cases of self-defense or with the authorization of the UN Security Council. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter outlines this principle.

The Nicaragua case, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that US actions in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua did not constitute an armed attack under Article 51, highlighted that the right of self-defense applies only in cases of actual armed attacks.

A state can only use force in self-defense if there's a true armed attack against it. The defensive action must be proportionate to the threat and not excessive. It must also be a last resort, with no other reasonable options available to stop the attack.

States can use force to defend themselves against an armed attack, but this right is limited to cases of actual attacks. It is not a license for preemption or intervention.

The ICJ ruled that supporting rebels with weapons and training does not automatically constitute an 'armed attack' under international law. However, such actions can be considered a threat or intervention.

The right to self-defense is limited to situations where there is a genuine threat. This means a state cannot use force against another state because of a potential future threat, even if the threat is considered very likely.

The Caroline test states that a state can only use force against another state in cases of immediate and overwhelming necessity, where there are no other peaceful options. This standard is very strict and hard to meet.

States have a right to use force to defend themselves from an ongoing armed attack. The force used for self-defense must be proportionate to the threat, meaning it should be commensurate with the attack and not excessive.

The ICJ ruled that the US's actions in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua did not constitute an armed attack under Article 51. The court found that although the actions might be considered a threat, they did not meet the requirement of 'armed attack' according to international law.

The right of self-defense is recognized as a fundamental principle of international law, but the scope and interpretation of this right have been a subject of much debate, particularly with regard to anticipatory self-defense.