Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgment
- Table of abbreviations and abbreviated citations
- Selected case law, legislation and related documents
- Introduction
- 1 The methodological debate and the quest for custom
- 2 ‘Armed attack’ and other conditions of self-defence
- 3 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione materiae
- 4 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione temporis
- 5 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione personae
- 6 What future for the ‘armed attack’ criterion?
- Index
- References
2 - ‘Armed attack’ and other conditions of self-defence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgment
- Table of abbreviations and abbreviated citations
- Selected case law, legislation and related documents
- Introduction
- 1 The methodological debate and the quest for custom
- 2 ‘Armed attack’ and other conditions of self-defence
- 3 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione materiae
- 4 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione temporis
- 5 The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione personae
- 6 What future for the ‘armed attack’ criterion?
- Index
- References
Summary
Having spelt out the methodological assumptions on which the present study is founded, we may now proceed to the actual analysis of the law on the use of force. In this context, it must be recalled that the focus of this study lies in particular on the aspect of self-defence that has raised most controversy in recent years, namely the need for an armed attack to occur before self-defence may lawfully be exercised. As explained in the Introduction, Chapters 3 to 5 are dedicated to an analysis of customary practice relevant for the notion of ‘armed attack’.
Before turning to the various dimensions of the ‘armed attack’ requirement, however, it is first necessary to gain a better insight into the preconditions of self-defence in general. To this end, the present chapter briefly examines the text and the travaux of Article 51 UN Charter, in order to determine whether the ‘armed attack’ requirement actually constitutes an integral part thereof (section 2.1). This constitutes an important step to determine the ‘baseline’ against which customary practice is to be tested, and to distinguish interpretative from modificatory practice. Subsequently, we will proceed to an analysis of the various conventional and/or customary preconditions for the exercise of self-defence, other than the armed attack criterion (section 2.2).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- 'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN CharterEvolutions in Customary Law and Practice, pp. 53 - 125Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, ‘The use of force in self-defence’, (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law183–268, at 184Google Scholar
, International law and the use of force by states (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘La théorie de la légitime défense’, (1934-III) 49 Recueil des Cours687–868, at 720.Google Scholar
, The Peace Pact of Paris: a study of the Briand–Kellogg Treaty (New York: Putnam's Sons, 1928), p. 43Google Scholar
, Origin and conclusion of the Paris Pact. The renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Boston, MA: World Peace Foundation, 1929), p. 166Google Scholar
, ‘Individual and collective self-defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations’, (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law872–9, at 877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Nicaragua case: new answers to old question?’, (1986) 24 Canadian Yearbook of International Law127–60, at 147Google Scholar
, ‘Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law’, (1972-II) 136 Recueil des Cours411–97, at 479–83Google Scholar
, ‘The regulation of the use of force by individual States in international law’, (1952-II) 81 Recueil des Cours451–517, at 496–9.Google Scholar
, ‘The development and general trends of international law in our time’, (1980-IV) 169 Recueil des Cours9–377, at 162Google Scholar
, ‘L'interdiction du recours à la force. Le principe et les problèmes qui se posent’, (1951-I) 78 Recueil des Cours1–121, at 84Google Scholar
and , Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, 7th edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 310.Google Scholar
, Restatement of the Law – Third. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers, 1990), p. 383Google Scholar
, The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000), pp. 36–7Google Scholar
, War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and , Charter of the United Nations: commentary and documents (Boston, MA: World Peace Foundation, 1946), p. 70Google Scholar
, Problems and process: international law and how we use it (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), at 248Google Scholar
, ‘Topographies of force’, in and (eds.), International law and armed conflict exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 29–77, at 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Article 2(4)’, in in collaboration with , , and (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 114–37, at 117–18Google Scholar
, ‘The ban on the use of force and the U.N. Charter’, in (ed.), The current legal regulation of the use of force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), pp. 3–8, at 3Google Scholar
, ‘Article 2: paragraphe 4’, in and , La Charte des Nations Unies, 2nd edn (Paris: Economica, 1991), pp. 115–28, at 122–3Google Scholar
, ‘Political and economic coercion in contemporary international law’, (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, International law and the use of force, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar
, International law: process and prospect (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1987), pp. 79Google Scholar
, Aggression and world order: a critique of United Nations theories of aggression (London: Stevens & Sons, 1958), pp. 95–6.Google Scholar
, Recourse to force: State action against threats and armed attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Krijgsmacht, geweldgebruik en terreurbestrijding (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2008), pp. 126–39Google Scholar
, ‘International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal7–37, at 10–11Google Scholar
, International law: politics and values (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995), pp. 115–16Google Scholar
, ‘When States use armed force’, in , The politics of international law (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 45–79, at 58–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Soviet–Cuban quarantine and self-defense’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law597–604, at 599–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The secret war in Central America and the future world order’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law43–127, at 82–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Jus Cogens and the inherent right to self-defense’, (1996–7) 3 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law767–827, at 802–3.Google Scholar
, Self-defense in international law: the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), pp. 150–85Google Scholar
, The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems (London: Stevens, 1950), pp. 791–2Google Scholar
and , ‘The advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons’, (1998–9) 27 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law345–87, at 367.Google Scholar
, International law in theory and practice (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), pp. 135Google Scholar
, Les réactions décentralisées à l'illicité: des contre-mesures à la légitime défense (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1990), pp. 299–300Google Scholar
, ‘Self-defence and the Security Council: what does Article 51 require?’, (1991) 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly366–402, at 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Entebbe operation: a legal analysis of Israel's rescue action’, (1977–8) 12 J Int'l L of Economics57–83, at 79.Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), pp. 448–9.Google Scholar
, The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations (Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 207Google Scholar
, ‘The expanding law of self-defence’, (2006) 11 Journal of Conflict and Security Law343–59, at 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Repertoire of the practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), pp. 449Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1956–1958 (New York, 1959), p. 174Google Scholar
, ‘Allocating competences to use coercion in the post-Cold War World: practices, conditions, and prospects’, in and (eds.), Law and force in the new international order (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 26–48, at 43–4.Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1985–1988 (New York, 2000), p. 431Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1989–1992 (New York, 2006), p. 940Google Scholar
, ‘Until what? Enforcement action or collective self-defense?’, (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law506–16, at 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1989–1992 (New York, 2006), p. 940 (note 540).Google Scholar
and , ‘UN Police Action in lieu of war: the old order changeth’, (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law63–74, at 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The right to self-defence once the Security Council takes action’, (1995–6) 17 Michigan Journal of International Law229–48, at 234Google Scholar
, Le droit contre la guerre; l'interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Paris: Pedone, 2008), pp. 711, 713Google Scholar
‘Report on the San Francisco Conference’, (1945) 12 Department of State Bulletin1009.
, ‘The fundamental principles of international law’, (1955-I) 87 Recueil des Cours191–385, at 336.Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1981–1984 (New York, 1992), p. 326Google Scholar
, ‘Terrorism, the use of force and international law after September 11’, (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly401–14, at 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Terrorism and the right of self-defense’, (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law839–42, at 841–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Responding to international terrorism: moving the frontiers of international law for “Enduring Freedom”?’, (2001) 48 Netherlands International Law Review271–91, at 281–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Les “étirements” de la légitime défense’, (2002) 48 Annuaire français de Droit International49–80, at 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal7–37, at 22Google Scholar
, ‘Lawful self-defense to terrorism’, (2002) 63 University of Pittsburgh Law Review889–908, at 892–3.Google Scholar
, ‘Cours général de droit international public’, (1987-III) 207 Recueil des Cours9–463, at 372Google Scholar
, ‘The New World Order and the right of self-defense in the United Nations Charter’, (1991–2) 15 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review55–81, at 68Google Scholar
, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), p. 449.Google Scholar
, ‘The Nicaragua case and the deterioration of world order’, (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law151–9, at 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Collective self-defence under the Charter of the United Nations’, (1955–6) 32 British Yearbook of International Law130–61Google Scholar
(ed.), Oppenheim's international law: a treatise. Vol. II. 7th edn. (London: Longmans, 1952), p. 155.
, ‘The legal validity of military intervention by invitation of the government’, (1985) 56 British Yearbook of International Law189–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Caroline and McLeod cases’, (1938) 32 American Journal of International Law82–99, at 85; 29 BFSP 1137; 30 BFSP 195–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by States (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Self-defence and the conduct of international armed conflict’, in (ed.), International law at a time of perplexity: essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 273–88, at 274.Google Scholar
, Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission81Google Scholar
and in (1975) 56 Annuaire de L‘Institut de Droit International73–6.
, ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, (1980-II) 32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part One, 69Google Scholar
, Defining international aggression. The search for world peace: a documentary history and analysis. Vol. II (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1975), p. 46Google Scholar
, ‘Article 51’, in and , La Charte des Nations Unies, 3rd edn. (Paris: Economica, 2005), pp. 1329–61, at 1333Google Scholar
, ‘The lawful resort to unilateral use of force’, (1984–5) 10 Yale Journal of International Law291–4, at 292.Google Scholar
, The changing rules on the use of force in international law (Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 144Google Scholar
, ‘Illegitimate, unnecessary and disproportionate: Israel's use of force in Lebanon’, (2007) Cambridge Student Law Review70–85, at 80Google Scholar
, ‘Preemptive strategies in international law’, (2002–3) 24 Michigan Journal of International Law513–48, at 530–1.Google Scholar
, ‘Les “étirements” de la légitime défense’, (2002) 48 Annuaire français de Droit International49–80, at 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Reprisals involving recourse to armed force’, (1972) 66 American Journal of International Law1–36, at 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The rules on the use of force at the beginning of the XXI century’, (2006) 11 Journal of Conflict and Security Law319–42, at 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘International law at crossroads?: the impact of September 11’, (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht183–255, at 233Google Scholar
, ‘Les attentats du 11 Septembre et leurs suites: où va le droit international?’, (2001) 105 Revue Générale de Droit International Public829–48, at 838–9.Google Scholar
, ‘Terror and the law: the unilateral use of force and the June 1993 bombing of Baghdad’, (1994–5) 5 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law457–97, at 487–93Google Scholar
, ‘State response to acts of terrorism’, (1976) 19 German Yearbook of International Law223–37, at 226–9Google Scholar
, ‘A propos de l'attaque américaine contre l'Irak du 26 juin 1993: lettre d'un professeur désemparé aux lecteurs du JEDI’, (1994) 5 European Journal of International Law134–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Missiles with a message: the legality of the United States raid on Iraq's intelligence headquarters’, (1993–94) 17 Hastings ICLRev241–74Google Scholar
, ‘The Baghdad bombing: self-defence or reprisals?’, (1994) 5 European Journal of International Law120–33, at 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Of course we recognize that the practice of States is not always consistent with [the prohibition of armed reprisals] and that it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish the exercise of proportionate self-defence from an act of reprisal. Yet, essentially for reasons of the abuse to which the doctrine of reprisals particularly lends itself, we think it desirable to endeavor to maintain the distinction between acts of lawful self-defense and unlawful reprisals.’ Reproduced in (1974) 68 American Journal of International Law736.
, ‘La légitime defense en droit international: une évolution à la suite du conflit israélo-libanais?’, (2007) Journal des Tribunaux421–6, at 423.Google Scholar
, ‘Israeli counter-fedayeen tactics in Lebanon: self-defence and reprisal under modern international law’, (1982–3) 21 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law1–48, at 41Google Scholar
and , Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 242Google Scholar
, ‘“Secret Wars”, self-defense and the Charter – a reply to Professor Moore’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law568–83, at 575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘L'arrêt de la Cour Internationale de Justice dans l'affaire des Activités Armées sur le Territoire du Congo et le recours à la force’, (2006) 39 Revue Belge de Droit International671–702, at 691Google Scholar
, ‘The role of proportionality in the law of international countermeasures’, (2001) 12 European Journal of International Law889–916, at 909–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.), Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 573–606
and , ‘Exploring the limits of international law relating to the use of force in self-defence’, (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law499–524, at 520–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Changements et continuité du droit international’, (1985-VI) 195 Recueil des Cours9–374, at 77Google Scholar
, ‘Maritime law enforcement and the use of force: reflections on the categorization of forcible action at sea in the light of the Guyana/Suriname Award’, (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict and Security Law49–91, at 67–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘The Bush doctrine revisited: the 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA’, (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law555–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, ‘Afghanistan, the erosion of the right to self-defence and the case of the missing immediacy’, in and (eds.), Changing perceptions of sovereignty and human rights: essays in honour of Cees Flinterman (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2008), pp. 529–50, at 538–40Google Scholar
, ‘Changing views on the use of force: the German position’, (2005) 5 Baltic Yearbook of International Law41–76, at 59–60Google Scholar
, ‘Legality of maritime interception operations within the framework of Operation Enduring Freedom’, in , and (eds.), Redefining sovereignty: the use of force after the Cold War (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2005), pp. 365–85.Google Scholar
, The fight for the ‘Malvinas’: the Argentine forces in the Falklands War (London: Viking, 1989)Google Scholar
, ‘Here, there and everywhere: assessing the proportionality doctrine and U.S. uses of force in response to terrorism after the September 11 attacks’, (2002) 88 Cornell Law Review155–214Google Scholar
, ‘Back to basics: necessity, proportionality, and the right of self-defence against non-state terrorist actors’, (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar