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.
Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
The Legalist Paradigm represents the dominant thinking in the international law of armed conflict. It is an attempt to outline a theory of aggression, and a basis of judgment on the just or unjust nature of a war. It places its claim and is based on six fundamental principles: firstly, that there exists an international society of independent states made up of individuals, secondly that members of the international society have the right to political sovereignty in addition to territorial integrity, that any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against another constitutes aggression and is criminal, that violence is justified to defend or as a means of law enforcement by a victim or any other member of the international society,
As states in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The charter additionally outlines exceptions to article 2(4): force used in self-defense the attack must be an armed attack; security council enforcement actions under chapter VII-The security council is authorized under article 39 to determine the existence of any...
First of all, the R2P clearly states that: i) the State has the primary responsibility to protect its population from heinous human rights abuses such as genocide, war crimes, crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing; ii) the international community has the responsibility to assist States in fulfilling their primary responsibility as indicated in point i) and as such, it should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from those crimes; iii) however, when a State fails to protect its own populations or is the actual perpetrator of such crimes against its populations, the international community must be prepared to ta...
A discrepancy exists given that although this is regarded as unlawful, the use of veto power exempts them from being held accountable. Western states hold these actions to be morally legitimate, however, it violates their state sovereignty. This is evident in the case of the United States invasion of Iraq and Syria. Consequently, Bellamy acknowledges that the responsibility to protect has been abused. Adam Branch discusses American perspective of morality over International law using the events of Kosovo. The military intervention was deemed to be morally justified by the American government, while other states believe it violated state sovereignty. It seems as a Western cultural arrogance to engage in humanitarian intervention as there always has been this notion of ‘white’s man burden.’ Branch argues that at the end of the Cold War and the Gulf War marked the beginning of two important trends that were to define UN military intervention. First, the “legitimacy of military intervention through moral claims were privileged” and second, the role of the Security Council (104). Branch notes the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect has no legal standing and does not hold states accountable. I agree with Branch’s overall argument that the responsibility to protect is limited by existing
The objections from foreign and domestic observers surrounded the activities for which the militias came later to be interconnected with - violence, land grabbing, and lawlessness. Klein questions, “under what conditions does the state empower a group that it would rather suppress, and does this undermine the state’s authority in the region? What are the factors that would allow the state to consider the formation of these undisciplined militias?”
Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffused enemy has proven to be ethically more problematic regarding identification and actions against a combative force with considerations for emerging technologies.
For the last turn of statecraft, the country of Dystopia decided to make some big power moves. First, we came to the conclusion to break the Stronger Together treaty that agreed for all countries to work together and vowed that if one of us is attacked then the other will come to the aid. By breaking the treaty, we attacked the country of Adrenelle with our strong military force. Our justification for this move is continuing focusing on the state’s self-interest rather than the relationships with other countries. We want to be the strongest country known for military force as we are a militaristic dictatorship. As the Ardenelle President was unhappy with our decisions about moving troops near the countries border, we felt it was necessary
Taking part in war is morally supported in protection against hostility, which is characterized as “every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent
The obligation to respect requires States abstain from interfering with the ICESCR rights. The duty to protect calls for States to shield rights-holders from third party violations. The responsibility to fulfil involves States taking action to reach the total realisation of the rights. If any of these are not satisfied, a violation has occurred. Violations can be committed through both action and inaction.
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
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 ...