On 1 January, an explosion occurred in the capital city of Volvor by a non state organization “The Assassin” based in the territory of Polor. In which, the state property was damaged and numerous civilians were killed. No involvement by the sate of Polor was proved and it also claimed to be impotent in order to preclude the activities of the organization. While exercising the right of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, state of Volvor attacked in the territory of Polar considering it to be the headquarter of “The Assassin” with the aim of bringing the main leader of the organisation to justice. As a result, not only the aim of targeting the leaders was accomplished but plentiful casualties of innocent civilians took place during the retaliation. The question requires the discussion of law with regard to the legality of the use of force in self defence against armed attack by the non state actors as an entity within the territory of a foreign state, along with the principle of necessity and proportionality.
The general rule of Article 51 is that the attack must be attributed to the foreign state. In this case, the proofs are required that Polor either has a complete control over “The Assassin” as a de facto state organ or has effective control on “The Assassin”’s act in question. Since there are no proofs of either against the state of Polor, the armed attack can not be attributed to Polor. 9/11 attacks are the emblematic example of non state actors where attacks on the United States (US) have been made while contriving from another state territory. On October 7, 2001, US responded the attacks by targeting Taliban and Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The international community also recognised US invasion in Afgha...
... middle of paper ...
...tfully exercised its inherent right of self defence by using the force under the Article 51 of the UN Charter even though the proportionality of casualties caused by act of Volvor are different from calamities by the Polor.
Seeing the case of Polor and Volvor, it can be said that, it is the duty of the state itself to protect its citizens and residents from any internal or foreign attack, when the perpetrators plan ad executes the attacks while conspiring outside the borders of the state and the when host state fails to take necessary measures against such acts of non state groups. Moreover, the use of force by the Volvor is justified and does not constitute the violation of Polor’s sovereignty because Article 51 authorizes the victim state to use force in self defence to mitigate the anticipated threats, in response to such armed attack by the non state actors.
In “On the American Indians” Vitoria argues that there are few situations that justify a country to use humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention is defined as military force, publicly stated to end the violation of human rights, against another state. Vitoria discredits the justification of humanitarian intervention in every case, unless you are intervening for an ally or a friend. In this paper, I will argue that his view is more plausible than it may at first appear.
2. “In the eyes of a strictly utilitarian world the obvious contradiction between these acts and military expediency gave
was targeted because it's seen as “a beacon for freedom” and the people who attacked were evil (Johnson 2).” Honestly, I believe that some of kind of attack should’ve of been expected because of the U.S. continued presence in the Middle East and their support of Israel. The reason is some countries in the Middle East feel as though that the U.S. presence is unnecessary and wants to get rid of them, as well as, they don’t like how they support Israel. This caused some countries in the Middle East to have some kind of hostility against the U.S. This is some of the reasons why the U.S. was targeted during the 9/11 attack. However, I’m not saying that the 9/11 attack was justified but simply stating that some of kind of attack should’ve be anticipated. I also agreed with the author they said the U.S. should pull their troops out of the Middle East since there are other ways to get along with them. Additionally, do an, “...analysis...of our “forward deployed” troops, refurbished our diplomatic capabilities, reassured the world that we are not unilateralist…., then we might assess what we can do against “terrorism (Johnson 4).” In other words, by doing the analysis, fixing their diplomatic capabilities, show the world they aren’t going to disregard the other party than they can really assess the issue of
On March 24, 1999, the united countries of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under pressure from the United States, launched an illegal assault upon a sovereign nation. The evidence is overwhelming that leaders within the United State government sponsored this decision with the extreme perseverance from President of the United States. NATO should have dismissed the request for assault and involvement for it was clearly illegal. It’s perpetrators showed total disregard for Article One of the NATO Charter, which incorporates by reference the United Nations Charter, Chapter One, Article Two, Sections Three, Four and Seven. These sections make it clear that NATO’s role is to be purely defensive. The aggression that NATO has undertaken did not come from or with approval of the UN Security Council, which NATO’s Charter clearly states numerous times that the UN Security Council will convene and approve of any such matter or action. It is a brutal violation of NATO’s Charter and of all principles of international law.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
First, Osama Bin Laden, a dangerous terrorist claims that he caused the attacks to happen(Time). Some people could say, that the government could have paid him to admit to the attacks, but I say no because, it doesn't sound like anything the government would do, if it was the government I think they would own it. In a video released to the public, it shows him, and he admits to the attacks. If a terrorist admits to these attacks, why would the government have done this.The terrorists
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
The art of war has been a vital aspect of state-making throughout history. Max Weber contends in his essay, Politics as a Vocation, that the State is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 77), a definition that political experts cite to this day. However, many scholars today believe that we have created a new type of warfare, one that questions the validity of the statehood of current international powers as well as Weber’s own precedent for identifying States.
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
...of violation of fundamental rights the defense of sovereign immunity cannot be accepted. Therefore, the view as to liability of the state changed in both ways that
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Currently, International system is focusing on issues related with maritime security. Maritime security coxncern with threats that prevail in the maritime domain (Klein 2011; Kraska and Pedrozo 2013; Roach 2004; Vrey 2010, 2013). These threats include interstate-dispute, terrorism, piracy, drugs trafficking, people and illicit foods, arms proliferation, illegal fishing, environmental crimes, as well as accidents and disaster which happen in maritime domain. Thus, generally, maritime security can be defined as the absence of those threats. Meanwhile, there is an argument that inter-states dispute should be categorized as national security instead of maritime security. Thus, there is another definition of maritime security which define maritime security as good or stable order at sea (Till 2004; Vrey 2010; Kraska and Pedrozo 2013: 1). The definition of maritime security from one to another is different as the scope of maritime security is broad and each actor has different point of view on the issue. There is no universal legal definition about maritime security. The United Nation itself only
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...