Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Use of force and Terrorism (Permitted Exceptions: Chapter VII of the UN…

- - - - Scholars fundamentally disagree as to whether Article 2(4) contains an absolute prohibition on the
        use of force (subject to the right to use self-defence: see later), or whether there is some residual
        discretion on States to act to protect the purposes of the United Nations (humanitarian
        intervention being the most relevant example of this).
        During the Cold War, a more limited interpretation was favoured in theory by powerful States,
        arguing that the Security Council’s paralysis meant that the Charter needed to be effective even
        when the Council could not act; yet in practice this was not often invoked in practice (Corfu
        Channel; Nicaragua). States would often rely on other legal arguments rather than merely a
        flexible interpretation of Article 2(4), for example, the protection of their nationals (Israel, in the
        Entebbe incident, in Harris, pp. 768-771) and the United States in Grenada (Harris, p.745) and Panama), or collective self-defence (the USSR in Hungary (Harris,p. 743) and Czechoslovakia
        (Harris, p. 744); the United States/El Salvador in Nicaragua).
      - Two other use of force were invoked in order to justify force: 1. Force in pursuit of self-determination: although during the decolonisation era there
        was discussion as to whether ‘peoples’ could resist colonial domination, and there were
        UN resolutions that allowed for them to ‘struggle’, there was much ambiguity as to
        whether this was limited to peaceful resistance. The only agreement is that force should
        not be used against a people invoking a right to self-determination. Of little relevance
        today, save for the continuining Israel-Palestinian conflict and the occupation by Israel of
        the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
        
        Force in pursuit of democracy: primarily put forward by American academics, and
        virtually never used by States (Gray cites how the invasion of Panama was claimed to be
        in self-defence). But at times ‘democracy’ has been invoked by the United Nations
        Security Council (Haiti in 1993), or the General Assembly (Honduras in 2009), this is most
        exceptional and can only lead to force if authorised by a resolution under
- - - - Reporting to the Security Council: Article 51 requires that States using force justified
        by self-defence report their actions to the Security Council, as such action is meant to be
        temporary until the Council takes action. Yet in practice it rarely takes a position in the
        case of inter-State conflicts, as to do so would be to suggest that one State is the aggressor
        (a notable exception is Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990; another is the 2001 declaration
        that the United States had the right of self-defence against Afghanistan, after the World
        Trade Center/Pentagon attacks). The failure of a State to report to the Security Council
        has been taken by the ICJ (in Armed Activities) as an indication that that the State might
        not itself be convinced it is acting in self-defence. Yet failure to report is not in itself
        grounds for terminating a right to self-defence that would otherwise exist; and self-defence
        may continue to exist as a right even if the Council takes action (e.g. Argentina’s seizure of
        the Falklands, and the World Trade Centre attacks).