lawteacher.

net

The Use of Force in

All Answers Ltd

12-15 minutes

Info: 2326 words (9 pages) Essay

Reference this
Jurisdiction / Tag(s): International Law
The use of force has been a long standing
phenomenon in international relations and has
been considered to be directly linked to the
sovereignty of states-the limitless power
wielded by states to use all possible means to
guard and protect their interests. However, the
longer period that war has been associated
with sovereignty of state, the more the issue
has turned into a legal institution by itself. This
paper looks at the prohibited and permissible
use of force in International Relations.
Developed social awareness has expanded the
limits (and even led) to the right to resort to
war. This indeed has abolished the use of force
or any form of threats in relation among
nations, this has become a rule of law in
international criminal law-its violation comes
with criminal responsibility in the eyes of the
international community. However, there are
certain situations in which it is allowed to use
force such as for self defense purposes,
humanitarian intervention, and preemptive
power inter alia.
Introduction
In the international community, force has
featured as at high levels of decentralization
i.e. force has been use d for different
purposes-it has been applied to previous
intervention and to punish for noncompliance
according to demand. War is the hardcore form
of force and is used to grab territories or to
completely suppress states. Reprisals are also
considered as violence in international
relations. Kelsen, war has been considered to
be permissible due to existence of sovereignty
among the states. [1]
Prohibition to use of force and threats
The United Nations Charter in article 2(4)
controls the use of force by member states.
The UN Charter states that;
“All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United
Nations.”
This law has been ratified by all the members
and is protected by the United Nations Charter
1945 to prohibit the use of force by states. This
was the time when Louse Doswald-Beck was
the secretary general of the International
Commission of Jurists [2] . Most scholars have
interpreted Article 2(4) to be banning the use of
force as in “territorial integrity or political
independence of states”; the most commonly
held opinion is that the above factors are only
to reinforce Article 2(4)-which encompasses
general prohibitions with exceptions outlined in
the Charter such as self-defense and those in
Chapter VII by the United Nations security
council. The general principle is to ban the use
of armed forces except in cases where; there is
collective action-pursued to maintain or even
enforce peace (Articles 24, 25, and Chapter
VII) ; and Article 51which states that, “Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right to individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a state.” In
addition, other cited reasons that permit the
use of force include humanitarian intervention,
though this is still controversial, reprisals, and
states’ protection of their nationals in other
states.
The United Nations Charter and the
International Military Tribunal Statute have
been created with regard to international law.
These laws were created by the UN member
states in order to protect succeeding
generations from scourges of war. Members
resorted that the use of armed forces was not
allowed, save in the interest of all. The UN
Charter even though premising on the past is
open to future amendments since the definition
of the word ‘war’ has changed (and will
change) over time [3] . One may quickly note
that the word ‘war’ is not mentioned in the
Charter only “force” is mentioned together with
“enforcement measures”. In addition, total
prohibition of use of force is not indicated since
an exemption is given, “in the interest of all”.
Somewhat different is the Article 2, paragraph
4, reads:
“All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
Nations.” [4]
It is quite clear that the use of force is certainly
prohibited in the view of territorial integrity and
independence of member states [5] including
armed forces intervention. Thus, it is certain
that the United Nations does not condone any
form of reprisals, this is completely out of its
purpose. The use of the term ‘force’ clearly
indicates that the traditional perception on war
and the modern definition are prohibited [6] .
On that note, one can confidently argue that
the United Nations Charter has surpassed
previous international Acts that prohibited the
use of force. Traditionally, war has been the
gravest form of force. However, the view of war
as an institution that permitted the attainment
of state’s interests. The Charter only speaks of
the use of force as legal or illegal, it does not
recognize just and unjust wars, the former is a
rule while the latter is an exemption.
In the eyes of most scholars, the term ‘force’ is
quickly interpreted as ‘armed force’. This is a
rejection of other types of force such as
political and even economic.
Sharmasanascvilly argues that, the different
forms of force which can be used by states are
prohibited as outlined in Article 2, paragraph 4
of the UN Charter. The armed forces disturb
territorial integrity; however, political
independence is affected in various ways [7]
The major development in international law is
the prohibition of use of threat together with the
use of force itself, “threat or danger from
aggression” is prohibited by the League of
Nations Council (Article 10). [8] Thus the
prohibition of threat was aimed at “”preventing
and eliminating threats to peace and
suppression of aggression or other breaches of
peace” (Article 1, paragraph 1″ [9] . The
prohibition to use of force has been sealed by
the prohibition to use threat.
Collective action
The UN Security Council is mandated to
identify the existence of, and even take action
to curb, any threat to peace and security
among the members’ states. However, this
power has not been used as expected since
other measures such as the use of sanctions
are taken short of the traditional armed forces
by some of its members. The time that the UN
used force was in 1950 to ‘force’ North Korea
to withdraw from South Korea. Initially it had
been envisaged by the creators of the UN
Charter that the organisation would have its
own forces. However, much of the command of
these forces has been from the United States.
The UN Security Council for also authorized
the use of armed forces in 1960 during the
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. During this time, the
Council passed Resolution 678 [10] which
requested all members to support a forceful
operation in collaboration with Kuwait to ensure
Iraqi’s withdrawal from Kuwait. This very
resolution was never revoked until 2003, when
the Council passed Resolution 1441 which
authorized Iraq’s invasion due to its non-
compliance with the manufacture of atomic
weapons-a threat to global peace and security.
The UN also authorized the use of force in
countries like Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia and
currently Somalia.
Self defense
This is provided for in article 51. The inherent
right to individual or collective self-defense in
case of an armed attack allowed until the UN
Security Council has intervened. The steps
taken by members in the exercise of self-
defense must be reported to the Security
Council and must not in any way affect the
mandate of the Council under the current
Charter. The article states that,
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-
defense if an armed attack occurs against a
Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and
security. Measures taken by members in the
exercise of this right of self-defense shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council
and shall not in any way affect the authority
and responsibility of the Security Council under
the present Charter to take at any time such
action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and
security”. [11]
The right to self defense is still provided for in
the customary international law, as seen in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), the best
example is the Nicaragua Case [12] . Article 51
preserves the right to self defense and outlines
the procedures to be followed in case of an
armed attack. It has also been observed that,
an irregular forceful attack can prompt the use
of force as in the case of 9/11 attacks where
the Security Council allowed the US to use
force against the terrorists.
Pre-emptive force
The use of self defense is limited under the
international customary law. The permissibility
of the use of force in cases of self defense is
hinged on the interpretation of Article 51. There
is no right to pre-emptive self defense when an
armed attack has occurred, a state does not
have to wait for an armed attack to actually
occur to use force. Thus, a distinction has to be
drawn between, “preventive”, “anticipatory”,
and “interventionary” self defense. The ICJ has
not ruled out the use of pre-emptive armed
force to intervene in the case of an imminent
armed attack. However, opinio juris and
practice widely suggest that states have no
right to preventive self-defense. This can be
explained well by the Caroline’s case. [13]
Protection of nationals
Various states have asserted the controversial
claim to protect their nationals abroad. This
can be observed by the UK in Suez (1956), the
Israelis in Entebbe-Uganda (1976), and the US
force in the Dominican Republic (1965),
Panama (1989), and Grenada (1983). The use
of force has in some cases been linked with
other political reasons beside the protection of
nationals. For example, the intervention of the
US in Grenada in 1983 was widely linked to the
US opposition to the rising socialism in the
government of Grenada. The danger posed to
the US nationals in this case was not imminent
and this led to strong condemnation from the
United Nations General Assembly. The
examples above (except for the Mossad
intervention in Entebbe (1976)), the protection
of nationals has been a used as a veil to cover
other political agendas.
Humanitarian intervention
In modern times where terrorism has really
increased, several countries are beginning to
advocate for the right of humanitarian
intervention without the UN’s Security Council.
After the Kosovo’s crisis in 1999, countries like
the UK cited the importance of the use of
military force to avert such catastrophes in the
future. When NATO flexed its military muscle in
Yugoslavia, it had not acquired the UN Security
Council’s permission. On the contrary this
action was not condemned since the
intervention was necessary on humanitarian
grounds. Many states oppose such
unauthorized intervention on legal grounds
while others cite practicality-stronger nations
(military wise) could misuse or overuse such
powers.
Conclusion
The widespread debate on the significance of
the article 2(4) on the use of the word ‘force’ is
far much from over. The strain in opinions is
where by Article 51 uses the term “armed
attack” while the use of the term “force” in
Article 2(4) is meant to encompass economic
or other forms of coercion that are non military.
Such measures are banned by other
provisions. However, it does not seem to
accommodate the wider definition of force. This
article covers “threat of force” which is non-
permissible in itself. This paper looks at such
non-permissible use of force while also looking
 at the permissible use of force in situations
such as human intervention, protection of
nationals and self defense. The paper
acknowledges both arguments with reference
to article 2(4).

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please

Related Services

View all
Content relating to: "International Law"
International law, also known as public
international law and the law of nations, is the
set of rules, norms, and standards generally
accepted in relations between nations.
International law is studied as a distinctive part
of the general structure of international
relations.
Related Articles

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and