Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Challenges to the Charter framework - Coggle Diagram
The Challenges to the Charter framework
The self-defence exception
Interceptive SD: an armed attack has been lauched but has not reached to target yet
Anticipatory SD
Definition : used in order to describe the talking of defensive military action at the point immediately precedinf the lauching of an armed attack
In conformity of the art 51 bc it's an customary law that appears during the Caroline incident :arrow_right: necessity criteria / proportionality crieria
Restrictive school : excluding anticipatory SD bc a state need to bacame a real victim of an armed attack to use SD
Counter-restrictionists school : include the customary right of SD = most accept version in the practice of states
Pre-emptive SD
Definition : using force before a threat is imminent
Pb: decrease the poxer of the art 2-4 + Can it be use for act of terrorism?
No clear answer
The humanitarian interventions
The intervention to protect nationals abroad
Definition and conditions : 1) must be an imminent threat of injury to nationals 2) a failure of the territorial State to protect them 3) Action must be strictly confined to the object of protecting the national against the injury
Examples : The Iran Hostage crisis / The Entebbe incident
The intervention to protect human rights
Conditions : 1) an immediate and extensive threat to fundamental human rights 2) the protection of fundamental human rights = contradiction between protection and sovereignty
Legality basis
UN charter impose = 1) the maintenance of international peace and security 2) protection of human rights in the preambule / art 1/ art 55
Interpretation of article 2-4
Emergence of a new customary rule thanks to NATO = responsability to prevent genocide / war crimes / ethnic cleaning and crimes against humanity
SC resolutions
The question of terrorism
Definition : criminal acts that provoke a state of terror to destabilize a country BUT no internationnal definition bc no consensus on this scope = somes states consider terrorism as an option for populations wich are under foreign occupation or under the control of gv violating human right OR others country thinks there is no justification of terrorism
SD against non State actors
Is the right of SD under art 51 applucable ? The terrorism group need to be link to a state, effective controle (nicaragua cas) or overal control (Tadic case)
How does a victim State act against a non state actor ?
Two Types of Obligations for States: Positive: Take action to make sure terrorists can’t use their territory / Negative: Do not assist terrorist groups (no funding, weapons, or shelter).
If the Host State Can’t or Won’t Act?T he victim state may use limited force, only against the terrorist targets. Even if the host state isn’t supporting the group, it must stop them or face consequences
Theoretical and practical problems of the doctrine :
There is no clear international law or practice on this issue yet.
States disagree, and each situation is interpreted differently.
The rules are still evolving, and there’s no strong legal consensus.
Targeted killings
Definition : the extraterritorial use of lethal force against a specific individual, often a non-state actor = eliminate a specific target
Conditions : 1) Host country need to give it consent 2) Need to be a SD 3) Applies only in armed conflict 4) Civilians cannot be targeted, unless they take direct part in hostilities 5) In peacetime (no armed conflict), operations must follow the right to life