Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T17:22:04.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - ‘Armed attack’ and other conditions of self-defence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Tom Ruys
Tom Ruys
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Get access

Summary

Having spelt out the methodological assumptions on which the present study is founded, we may now proceed to the actual analysis of the law on the use of force. In this context, it must be recalled that the focus of this study lies in particular on the aspect of self-defence that has raised most controversy in recent years, namely the need for an armed attack to occur before self-defence may lawfully be exercised. As explained in the Introduction, Chapters 3 to 5 are dedicated to an analysis of customary practice relevant for the notion of ‘armed attack’.

Before turning to the various dimensions of the ‘armed attack’ requirement, however, it is first necessary to gain a better insight into the preconditions of self-defence in general. To this end, the present chapter briefly examines the text and the travaux of Article 51 UN Charter, in order to determine whether the ‘armed attack’ requirement actually constitutes an integral part thereof (section 2.1). This constitutes an important step to determine the ‘baseline’ against which customary practice is to be tested, and to distinguish interpretative from modificatory practice. Subsequently, we will proceed to an analysis of the various conventional and/or customary preconditions for the exercise of self-defence, other than the armed attack criterion (section 2.2).

Type
Chapter
Information
'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter
Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice
 , pp. 53 - 125
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brownlie, I., ‘The use of force in self-defence’, (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law183–268, at 184Google Scholar
Westlake, J., International law Vol. I (Cambridge University Press, 1904), p. 299.Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., International law and the use of force by states (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraud, E., ‘La théorie de la légitime défense’, (1934-III) 49 Recueil des Cours687–868, at 720.Google Scholar
Miller, D. H., The Peace Pact of Paris: a study of the Briand–Kellogg Treaty (New York: Putnam's Sons, 1928), p. 43Google Scholar
Myers, D. P., Origin and conclusion of the Paris Pact. The renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Boston, MA: World Peace Foundation, 1929), p. 166Google Scholar
Bowett, D. W., Self-defence in international law (Manchester University Press, 1958), pp. 187Google Scholar
Kunz, J. L., ‘Individual and collective self-defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations’, (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law872–9, at 877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R. S. J., ‘The Nicaragua case: new answers to old question?’, (1986) 24 Canadian Yearbook of International Law127–60, at 147Google Scholar
Schwebel, S. M., ‘Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law’, (1972-II) 136 Recueil des Cours411–97, at 479–83Google Scholar
Waldock, C. H. M., ‘The regulation of the use of force by individual States in international law’, (1952-II) 81 Recueil des Cours451–517, at 496–9.Google Scholar
Lachs, M., ‘The development and general trends of international law in our time’, (1980-IV) 169 Recueil des Cours9–377, at 162Google Scholar
Wehberg, H., ‘L'interdiction du recours à la force. Le principe et les problèmes qui se posent’, (1951-I) 78 Recueil des Cours1–121, at 84Google Scholar
Malanczuk, P. and Akehurst, M., Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, 7th edn (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 310.Google Scholar
,American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law – Third. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States (St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute Publishers, 1990), p. 383Google Scholar
Constantinou, A., The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000), pp. 36–7Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, L. M. and Hambro, E., Charter of the United Nations: commentary and documents (Boston, MA: World Peace Foundation, 1946), p. 70Google Scholar
Higgins, R., Problems and process: international law and how we use it (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), at 248Google Scholar
Kritsiotis, D., ‘Topographies of force’, in Dinstein, Y. and Schmitt, M. N. (eds.), International law and armed conflict exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 29–77, at 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randelzhofer, A., ‘Article 2(4)’, in Simma, B. in collaboration with Mosler, H., Randelzhofer, A., Tomuschat, C. and Wolfrüm, R. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 114–37, at 117–18Google Scholar
Röling, B. V. A., ‘The ban on the use of force and the U.N. Charter’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The current legal regulation of the use of force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), pp. 3–8, at 3Google Scholar
Virally, M., ‘Article 2: paragraphe 4’, in Cot, J.-P. and Pellet, A., La Charte des Nations Unies, 2nd edn (Paris: Economica, 1991), pp. 115–28, at 122–3Google Scholar
Farer, T. J., ‘Political and economic coercion in contemporary international law’, (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C., International law and the use of force, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar
D'Amato, A., International law: process and prospect (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1987), pp. 79Google Scholar
Stone, J., Aggression and world order: a critique of United Nations theories of aggression (London: Stevens & Sons, 1958), pp. 95–6.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., Recourse to force: State action against threats and armed attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducheine, P., Krijgsmacht, geweldgebruik en terreurbestrijding (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2008), pp. 126–39Google Scholar
Greenwood, C., ‘International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal7–37, at 10–11Google Scholar
Henkin, L., International law: politics and values (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995), pp. 115–16Google Scholar
Kritsiotis, D., ‘When States use armed force’, in Reus-Smit, C., The politics of international law (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 45–79, at 58–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougal, M. S., ‘The Soviet–Cuban quarantine and self-defense’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law597–604, at 599–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. N., ‘The secret war in Central America and the future world order’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law43–127, at 82–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahgan, C., ‘Jus Cogens and the inherent right to self-defense’, (1996–7) 3 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law767–827, at 802–3.Google Scholar
McCormack, T. L. H., Self-defense in international law: the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), pp. 150–85Google Scholar
Kelsen, H., The law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems (London: Stevens, 1950), pp. 791–2Google Scholar
Grotius, H., De Jure Belli ac Paci (Carnegie Endowment translation of 1925, 1646)Google Scholar
Vattel, E., Le droit des gens 1863 edn (Paris: Guillaumin, 1863)Google Scholar
Smis, S. and Borght, K., ‘The advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons’, (1998–9) 27 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law345–87, at 367.Google Scholar
Schachter, O., International law in theory and practice (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), pp. 135Google Scholar
Sicilianos, L.-A., Les réactions décentralisées à l'illicité: des contre-mesures à la légitime défense (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1990), pp. 299–300Google Scholar
Greig, D. W., ‘Self-defence and the Security Council: what does Article 51 require?’, (1991) 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly366–402, at 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knisbacher, M., ‘The Entebbe operation: a legal analysis of Israel's rescue action’, (1977–8) 12 J Int'l L of Economics57–83, at 79.Google Scholar
,United Nations Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), pp. 448–9.Google Scholar
Higgins, R., The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations (Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 207Google Scholar
Ronzitti, N., ‘The expanding law of self-defence’, (2006) 11 Journal of Conflict and Security Law343–59, at 356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), pp. 449Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1956–1958 (New York, 1959), p. 174Google Scholar
Reisman, W. M., ‘Allocating competences to use coercion in the post-Cold War World: practices, conditions, and prospects’, in Damrosch, L. F. and Scheffer, D. J. (eds.), Law and force in the new international order (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), pp. 26–48, at 43–4.Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1985–1988 (New York, 2000), p. 431Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1989–1992 (New York, 2006), p. 940Google Scholar
Rostow, E. V., ‘Until what? Enforcement action or collective self-defense?’, (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law506–16, at 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1989–1992 (New York, 2006), p. 940 (note 540).Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. and Patel, F., ‘UN Police Action in lieu of war: the old order changeth’, (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law63–74, at 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halberstam, M., ‘The right to self-defence once the Security Council takes action’, (1995–6) 17 Michigan Journal of International Law229–48, at 234Google Scholar
Corten, O., Le droit contre la guerre; l'interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Paris: Pedone, 2008), pp. 711, 713Google Scholar
‘Report on the San Francisco Conference’, (1945) 12 Department of State Bulletin1009.
Schwarzenberger, G., ‘The fundamental principles of international law’, (1955-I) 87 Recueil des Cours191–385, at 336.Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1981–1984 (New York, 1992), p. 326Google Scholar
Byers, M., ‘Terrorism, the use of force and international law after September 11’, (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly401–14, at 412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T. M., ‘Terrorism and the right of self-defense’, (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law839–42, at 841–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrijver, N., ‘Responding to international terrorism: moving the frontiers of international law for “Enduring Freedom”?’, (2001) 48 Netherlands International Law Review271–91, at 281–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, J., ‘Les “étirements” de la légitime défense’, (2002) 48 Annuaire français de Droit International49–80, at 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, C., ‘International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal7–37, at 22Google Scholar
O'Connell, M. E., ‘Lawful self-defense to terrorism’, (2002) 63 University of Pittsburgh Law Review889–908, at 892–3.Google Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., ‘Cours général de droit international public’, (1987-III) 207 Recueil des Cours9–463, at 372Google Scholar
Elliott, K. S., ‘The New World Order and the right of self-defense in the United Nations Charter’, (1991–2) 15 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review55–81, at 68Google Scholar
Green, L. C., ‘Iraq, the U.N. and the law’, (1991) 29 Alberta Law Review560–83, at 565Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1946–1951 (New York, 1954), p. 449.Google Scholar
Moore, J. N., ‘The Nicaragua case and the deterioration of world order’, (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law151–9, at 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, J., Droit international public (Brussels: Larcier, 2000), pp. 687–8.Google Scholar
Bowett, D. W., ‘Collective self-defence under the Charter of the United Nations’, (1955–6) 32 British Yearbook of International Law130–61Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, H. (ed.), Oppenheim's international law: a treatise. Vol. II. 7th edn. (London: Longmans, 1952), p. 155.
Doswald-Beck, L., ‘The legal validity of military intervention by invitation of the government’, (1985) 56 British Yearbook of International Law189–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, R., ‘The Caroline and McLeod cases’, (1938) 32 American Journal of International Law82–99, at 85; 29 BFSP 1137; 30 BFSP 195–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardam, J., Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by States (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, C., ‘Self-defence and the conduct of international armed conflict’, in Dinstein, Y. (ed.), International law at a time of perplexity: essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 273–88, at 274.Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission81Google Scholar
Castrén, and Chaumont, in (1975) 56 Annuaire de L‘Institut de Droit International73–6.
Ago, R., ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, (1980-II) 32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part One, 69Google Scholar
Ferencz, B. B., Defining international aggression. The search for world peace: a documentary history and analysis. Vol. II (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1975), p. 46Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1985–1988 (New York, 2000), 428Google Scholar
,UN Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council 1985–1988 (New York, 2000), 428Google Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘Article 51’, in Cot, J.-P. and Pellet, A., La Charte des Nations Unies, 3rd edn. (Paris: Economica, 2005), pp. 1329–61, at 1333Google Scholar
Rodin, D., War and self-defense (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), pp. 111–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, O., ‘The lawful resort to unilateral use of force’, (1984–5) 10 Yale Journal of International Law291–4, at 292.Google Scholar
Kalshoven, F., Belligerent reprisals, 2nd edn. (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005).Google Scholar
Gazzini, T., The changing rules on the use of force in international law (Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 144Google Scholar
Redsell, G., ‘Illegitimate, unnecessary and disproportionate: Israel's use of force in Lebanon’, (2007) Cambridge Student Law Review70–85, at 80Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. N., ‘Preemptive strategies in international law’, (2002–3) 24 Michigan Journal of International Law513–48, at 530–1.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, J., ‘Les “étirements” de la légitime défense’, (2002) 48 Annuaire français de Droit International49–80, at 65–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowett, D., ‘Reprisals involving recourse to armed force’, (1972) 66 American Journal of International Law1–36, at 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzini, T., ‘The rules on the use of force at the beginning of the XXI century’, (2006) 11 Journal of Conflict and Security Law319–42, at 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahn, C., ‘International law at crossroads?: the impact of September 11’, (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht183–255, at 233Google Scholar
Condorelli, L., ‘Les attentats du 11 Septembre et leurs suites: où va le droit international?’, (2001) 105 Revue Générale de Droit International Public829–48, at 838–9.Google Scholar
Surchin, A. D., ‘Terror and the law: the unilateral use of force and the June 1993 bombing of Baghdad’, (1994–5) 5 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law457–97, at 487–93Google Scholar
Blum, Y. Z., ‘State response to acts of terrorism’, (1976) 19 German Yearbook of International Law223–37, at 226–9Google Scholar
Condorelli, L., ‘A propos de l'attaque américaine contre l'Irak du 26 juin 1993: lettre d'un professeur désemparé aux lecteurs du JEDI’, (1994) 5 European Journal of International Law134–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quigley, J., ‘Missiles with a message: the legality of the United States raid on Iraq's intelligence headquarters’, (1993–94) 17 Hastings ICLRev241–74Google Scholar
Reisman, W. M., ‘The Baghdad bombing: self-defence or reprisals?’, (1994) 5 European Journal of International Law120–33, at 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Of course we recognize that the practice of States is not always consistent with [the prohibition of armed reprisals] and that it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish the exercise of proportionate self-defence from an act of reprisal. Yet, essentially for reasons of the abuse to which the doctrine of reprisals particularly lends itself, we think it desirable to endeavor to maintain the distinction between acts of lawful self-defense and unlawful reprisals.’ Reproduced in (1974) 68 American Journal of International Law736.
Steenberghe, R., ‘La légitime defense en droit international: une évolution à la suite du conflit israélo-libanais?’, (2007) Journal des Tribunaux421–6, at 423.Google Scholar
O'Connell, D. P., The influence of law on sea power (Manchester University Press, 1975), p. 34.Google Scholar
Levenfeld, B., ‘Israeli counter-fedayeen tactics in Lebanon: self-defence and reprisal under modern international law’, (1982–3) 21 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law1–48, at 41Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S. and Feliciano, F. P., Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 242Google Scholar
Rowles, J. P., ‘“Secret Wars”, self-defense and the Charter – a reply to Professor Moore’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law568–83, at 575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenberghe, R., ‘L'arrêt de la Cour Internationale de Justice dans l'affaire des Activités Armées sur le Territoire du Congo et le recours à la force’, (2006) 39 Revue Belge de Droit International671–702, at 691Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, E., ‘The role of proportionality in the law of international countermeasures’, (2001) 12 European Journal of International Law889–916, at 909–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A. and Guelff, R. (eds.), Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 573–606
Ochoa-Ruiz, N. and Salamanca-Aguado, E., ‘Exploring the limits of international law relating to the use of force in self-defence’, (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law499–524, at 520–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahier, P., ‘Changements et continuité du droit international’, (1985-VI) 195 Recueil des Cours9–374, at 77Google Scholar
Kwast, P. Jimenez, ‘Maritime law enforcement and the use of force: reflections on the categorization of forcible action at sea in the light of the Guyana/Suriname Award’, (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict and Security Law49–91, at 67–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, C., ‘The Bush doctrine revisited: the 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA’, (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law555–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myjer, E., ‘Afghanistan, the erosion of the right to self-defence and the case of the missing immediacy’, in Boerefijn, I. and Goldschmidt, J. (eds.), Changing perceptions of sovereignty and human rights: essays in honour of Cees Flinterman (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2008), pp. 529–50, at 538–40Google Scholar
Talmon, S., ‘Changing views on the use of force: the German position’, (2005) 5 Baltic Yearbook of International Law41–76, at 59–60Google Scholar
Heinegg, W. Heintschel von, ‘Legality of maritime interception operations within the framework of Operation Enduring Freedom’, in Bothe, M., O'Connell, M. E. and Ronzitti, N. (eds.), Redefining sovereignty: the use of force after the Cold War (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2005), pp. 365–85.Google Scholar
Middlebrook, M., The fight for the ‘Malvinas’: the Argentine forces in the Falklands War (London: Viking, 1989)Google Scholar
Bonafede, M. C., ‘Here, there and everywhere: assessing the proportionality doctrine and U.S. uses of force in response to terrorism after the September 11 attacks’, (2002) 88 Cornell Law Review155–214Google Scholar
Trapp, K. N., ‘Back to basics: necessity, proportionality, and the right of self-defence against non-state terrorist actors’, (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×