Limits of International Law in Relation to the Use of Force - Essay Example

?First Limits of international law in relation to the use of force Countries are allowed within thecharter to build up self defence. For example the USA, recently disobeyed this. The legal advisor the state John Ballinger III stated that: ‘The global war on terror-to which some have objected, is not intended to be a legal state. Article 51 in the charter provides that: “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. For example the United States can wage a war on terrorists and use force to crack them down1. Before acting so, the states have considered that the terrorists pose international security threats to the world as a whole. Therefore they expect cooperation from the international community to help them fight terrorists2. The clause in the charter that condemns the use of force is therefore undermined and not adhered. However there many challenge the UN body is experiencing so many challenges that keeping to the clauses of the charter. The charter was initiated to ensure disarmation and proliferation. Even though the measures have been put to into writing but no countries are adhering to them. This paper finds out whether the UN charter has a provision that allow countries to respond to attacks from terror groups is not clear. After the attacks on the United States, famously known as the “September 11 2001 attacks” or simply 9/11 attacks the UN Security Council immediately changes the rules in the next day3. The council recognised “the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence as provided in the charter. This came to be known as the “Security Council resolution 1368 (2001). The changes led to the reaffirmation on the state defence. The limits of use of force had been passed. Countries learn a very good lesson from the events in the United States and they soon started working on weapons to protect themselves. The only question that needs to be answered is the “are the countries really going to stick the original provisions in the charter? The limits of the use of force had been passed as it is now clear that countries cannot sit back and watch being provoked by any state. The other example is the Russian case. In alliance with some member states, it argued that use of force was only necessary if actual combat provocation was launched against a nation. United Kingdom and the United States had different views. They adopted that use of force was necessary in the event that an imminent attack on any country seemed so obvious. When the countries after the September eleven attacks on use, they adopted the “united nations general assembly resolution 60/1”. This was also known as the “2005 world summit outcome”. This meeting to the astonishment of many did not touch on the issue of self-defence. From this argument, it is now clear that the use of force is never a prohibition. Countries are never limited to use force. Kenya is another good example. They could not risk the outlawed militia, alshabaab to pose security threats to their country. They sent their defence forces and invaded Somali to fight the terror group. Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect Most of the superpowers have been the proponent in opposing the human right activists on invention to the use of force. They claim that many innocent lives are lost. This claim came into picture when safe havens were constructed in Iraq (northern) in 1991. This was the factor behind the marking the zones that were not to be used aircrafts. This was lauded more in Kosovo events where was a humanitarian crisis. The most elaborate was the 7th October 1998 of NATO: a) That it is objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to use of force if lives are to be saved4 b) That there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring urgent and immediate relief; c) That the proposed use of force is necessary and proportionate to the aim (the relief of human need) and is strictly limited in time and scopes to this aim i.e. it is the minimum necessary to achieve at the end. It would also be necessary at the appropriate stage to assess the targets against this criterion these findings limited the prohibition of use of force. The international community through the United Nations soldiers can never sit back and watch innocent citizens suffer. They are obliged to use force if there many citizens dying in war5. Favor instance in Kosovo, the humanitarian activists’ out cried for the forces to intervene and save the citizens. Some other cases that required intervention by use of force includes: India East Pakistan 1971, Vietnam Cambodia 1978 and Tanzania Uganda. United States for example have not embraced the prohibition on the use of force. Like in Iraq, the state justified that it was protection Kurds who are found in the northern part of the country. Explanation by Michael Matheson, a legal adviser of the state explained the positions of America as: “The assertion by states or regional organizations of a legal right to carry out such Benign” uses of force on their own authority could create precedents for the future Interventions by others that might be destabilizing and dangerous. This is one of the The main reasons the United States has never asserted the doctrine”. The legal advisor further noted that,” there is a much stronger legal and political basis for forcible humanitarian intervention under the authorization of the Security Council under Chapter VII or VIII.”6 New use of force doctrines, against states that harbour terrorist activities Many agreements or conventions have been done to ensure non-proliferation. for example the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Apart from the five nations declared to use nuclear weapons, the other nations should not possess them. The convention known as “biological weapons convention of 192’ and ‘chemical weapons conventions” do prohibit possession of these weapons7. And if by nay chance they possess them, they must destroy them according to the provisions in this convention. But these agreements did allow countries and states to chase their dreams of developing these weapons and require that they are used only in peace missions. International organisations and the governments have always expressed their concerns about the content of this charter. These technologies can put them in positions to producing dangerous weapons. After reaching the stage, the states can withdraw from the treaty and pursue the production of weapons of mass destruction. The current examples today are Iran and North Korea. Iran is seen as a threat to the entire world and its neighbours. USA as a superpower is considering using force to compel this country to abolish its nuclear plans. North Korea is another potential threat to international security. In fact they have even dared use into war. Their neighbour, South Korea, is facing a hard task of having to deal with a dangerous neighbour like North Korea. In this case, the international community has the duty to ensure that people living in this planet are safe and not worried of very dangerous weapons and technologies. The absence of armed attack The use force can be exempted from such cases that sow no content of armed attack and cannot justify article 51. For example in “the Nicaragua case”, the renowned international criminal court of justice found out that not all attacks can be considered criminal acts, it could have been a mere incident of armed attacks. In this case the prohibition on the use of force applies. Any amount or form of force will render this case uncalled for in this case. Territorial integrity of the state The use of force can also be limited to a state whose territory has been invaded. Countries and states are sovereign. No any country should interfere with the boarders of the others. Border disputes have led to the use of force. Israel and Palestine have been fighting for a very long time over territorial borders. Recently Kenya invaded Somalia on what it terms as protecting its borders. In the Far east, north and South Korea are on the brink of war. The north has officially waged a war against the south. They even prepared their missiles in case the USA as a superpower tries to intervene.8 The legal advisor the state John Ballinger III stated that: ‘The global war on terror-to which some have objected, is not intended to be a legal state. Article 51 in the charter provides that: “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. For example the United States can wage a war on terrorists and use force to crack them down9. Before acting so, the states have considered that the terrorists pose international security threats to the world as a whole. Therefore they expect cooperation from the international community to help them fight terrorists10. African union tries to always defend the sovereignty of its member states as well as their territorial integrity. This body allows for the use of force against its member states without making reference to the unit. Thus complying with the charter. The big contradiction is contained in article 4 of the consecutive act of the African Union adopted in 2000. It states out that 11 principles that govern African states. The charter is against the use of force which these African unions have not been observing12. African states are notorious for arming rebels against other countries. Central African countries have been put on spot always as they always experience humanitarian crises. Some countries may be harbouring terrorists. They may make it look like they are overwhelmed by these tourists but in a real sense, they support the terrorists. This happens in countries where the terrorists have taken control of the most part of the country. Effort by international bodies. The UN general assembly has made a declaration stating that each state should stay from “acquiescing in organised activities within its territory directed towards the commission13. This assembly further recommended that states ‘must prevent and suppress such subversive activity against foreign Governments as assumes the form of armed hostile expeditions. They may fail to suppress the terrorist. Other limitations can be attributed to challenges the UN body faces. Conclusion In a nutshell, the UN Charter has experienced several modifications and this has made it very difficult to the total adherence from use of force14. United states as a super power and forces behind the implementation of the charter have been a victim of the same. Several bodies and statutes have been formed by this organ to look into the implementation of less use of force. But these bodies have also considered moving away from the law since the world d is changing very fast15. The most threat this body faces is from the terrorist activities and production of weapons of mass destruction. Countries want sovereignty and in the process hey sign away from the UN charter. After they are free from the statute, they can do whatever they want, going further to create nuclear weapons that they can use against other states. The underlying principle of this charter is to create a world that is peaceful; to live in. Use of force is even condemned by human rights groups. They oppose the use of force and also want the international community to help curb the human crises in war prone areas. The era of refraining from the use of force is over. In the recent past there have been many warring neighbouring countries and those facing threats from their defiant neighbours. Bibliography Alexandra, S, Self-defence against the Use of Force in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publisher 1996) Brunno, Simma. The Charter of the United Nations (3rd edn Oxford University Press, 2009). Christine, Grey, International Law and the Use of Force (1st edn, Oxford university press, 2008. Christopher, Chapman, Use of force in minority is related to police education, age, experience, ethnicity (4th edn, Proquest, 2012.) David, Anderson. Some Aspect of the Use of Force in Maritime Law Enforcement. (3th edn Oxford press 2013) Judith, Gardam, Necessity, Proportionality and Use of Force by States (4th edition, Cambridge University Press 2009). Kyle, Haynes, “Lame Dukes and Coercive Diplomacy Do Executive Term Limits Reduce the Effectiveness of Democratic Threats” (5th edn , Cambridge University Pres2012) Marc, Weller, Iraq and the use of force in international law. (1st edition, Oxford University Press 2010.) Michael, N, Smith, “Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on Normative Framework” (5th ed Jayson & sons2006) Myra, Williamson, Terrorist, War and International Law: The Legality of the Use of Force against Afghanistan In 2001, (1st ed. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd 2009) Riane, N, Miller, Joseph, B, Kuhn’s, “Exploring the Impact of Medical Marijuana Laws on the Validity of Self-Reported Marijuana Used Among Juvenile Arrestees Over Time” [2011] Ruth, Russell .A history of the United Nations Charter: the role of the United States, 1940-1945 (2nd edn Brookings Institution, 2008) Ruys. 'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter (4th edn, Cambridge University Press, 2009) Tim, Prenzler, Louse Porter, Geoffrey, P. Alpert, “Reducing police uses of force: Case studies and prospects” (2nd edn, London publishers 2013) Yehuda, Blum, Eroding the United Nations Charter. (2nd edn, Brill Academic Pub, 1993) Read More