Self-Defence in International law - Essay Example

It is appropriate first to look at the idea of self-protection or self-defense in the scenario of global law. Self-defence is a country’s right to protection by international law if any other country or a militant group attacks or terrorizes that country. However, some limitations apply to this right, with self-defense warranted only where the attack is by a specific country (Valentino, Huth & Croco 2006). For instance, the event of 9/11 in America was a terrorist act that eventually led to a military and armed response by the state and its allies which raised a lot of difficulties regarding self-defense rights under international law. Article 51 means that such rights are applicable only in the case where military assault is committed by a specific country rather than a fanatic terrorist group (Al Qaeda) that does not represent any country in particular. The preface of Security Council Resolution 1368 dated twelve September recognizes the basic rights of an individual or common self-defence or self-protection act in agreement with the Charter. But the key functioning part of the Resolution views the 9/11 event as terrorist attacks rather than classifying them as armed attacks. Concluding this it can be said that the Resolution does not unambiguously recognize that the basic right of self-protection or defense as a consequence of the 9/11 event. However, as national interests have absolute priority in the United States, it is appropriate here to describe the principles of self-defense under international law attributable to the International Law Commission.

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention refers to armed intrusion into a country by another country in order to mitigate the pain, distress, and suffering of its citizens. Although such intervention in international law is very powerful, its concept remains profoundly vague. Intervention embodies an element of prevention as it is the means by which prevention is implemented (Eberwein and Badie, 2010). The main idea of humanitarian intervention is that a country has the right to intervene in matters of conflict in another country and, in some special circumstances, to intervene to protect the victimized people in the other country.  These attempts were just a reason to promote but in reality, invade other countries to enforce the basic rights of humans, these efforts were also supported by League’s mandate system and minorities’ clauses (Moosleitner, 2009). Humanitarian intervention by a powerful country in the internal affairs of another directly challenges its national sovereignty. Enforced internal interference in another country to prevent that country from violating human rights is the reason given by global lawyers justifying such acts. The reason is that UN Charter cannot cover every conflict between states, Consequently, it results in powerful countries invading and assaulting the other country the reason for violation of basic human rights or hazardous crimes situation. This scenario continues until the UN or the Security Council interferes and takes the matter into its own hands. 

International lawyers remain divided concerning the legality of humanitarian interventions under international law. International law increasingly appears in slogans and speeches even though it is not yet a technique of global governance (Koskenniemi, 2009). The United Nations Charter supports invading or attacking of one country on the other only if it is for the reason of self defense. It could be an individual or communal self-protection act as the consequence of any attack.

International lawyers also claim that the use of force to save the lives of citizens who are under threat in another country is justified.