What future for the ‘armed attack’ criterion?

Tom Ruys

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511779527.007

6 - What future for the ‘armed attack’ criterion?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2011

Tom Ruys

Show author details

Tom Ruys: Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The customary boundaries of self-defence

In this Section, we again confront the research question posed at the outset of our study: to what extent have recent evolutions in the international security environment, and reactions thereto in terms of State practice and opinio iuris, altered the customary boundaries of self-defence, both de lege lata and de lege ferenda? To answer it, we will bring together the different pieces of the puzzle, while keeping footnotes to a healthy minimum.

A word of caution

First, a word of caution. Throughout this study we have proceeded on the conviction that the primary material for interpreting and supplementing Article 51 UN Charter consists in relevant customary practice. We have made extensive use of ‘concrete’ custom, viz. States' physical practice and the concomitant exchanges of legal claims and counter-claims, but also of ‘abstract’ evidence – in particular the travaux of the UNGA Definition of Aggression. The case law of the ICJ and legal doctrine have been employed as a subsidiary source of interpretation.

While we believe this is the proper (positivist) method, its application is not without difficulties for various reasons. First, in spite of the abundance of verbal practice in the records of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the idenfication and weighing of State practice and opinio iuris is not a matter of exact science.

Type: Chapter
Information: 'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter
Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice
, pp. 511 - 550

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779527.007 [Opens in a new window]

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

Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 65CrossRef Google Scholar

Ago, R., ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, (1980-II) 32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part One, 63Google 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 Commission at 75, 84–5, 131–2Google Scholar

Poulantzas, N. M., The right of hot pursuit in international law, 2nd edn (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 2002), p. 12Google Scholar

Corten, O., ‘L’état de nécessité peut-il justifier un recours à la force non constitutif d'agression?', (2004) 1 Global Community11–50, at 23–7, 42–7Google Scholar

Kammerhofer, J., ‘The Armed Activities case and non-State actors in self-defence law’, (2007) 20 Leiden Journal of International Law89–113, at 105CrossRef Google 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 Law49–91CrossRef Google Scholar

Corten, O., Le droit contre la guerre; l'interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Paris: Pedone, 2008), pp. 63–121Google Scholar

Gray, C., International law and the use of force, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 122–3Google 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 274–6Google Scholar

Reyntjens, F., The Great African War: Congo and regional geopolitics. 1996–2006 (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRef Google Scholar

Franck, T. M., ‘Who killed Article 2(4)? Or: changing norms governing the use of force by states’, (1970) 64 American Journal of International Law809–37CrossRef Google Scholar

Glennon, M. J., ‘The rise and fall of the U.N. Charter's use of force rules’, (2003–04) 27 Hastings ICLRev497–510, at 497Google Scholar

Franck, T. M., Fairness in international law and institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 30–4Google Scholar

Johnstone, I., ‘Security Council deliberations: the power of the better argument’, (2003) 14 European Journal of International Law437–80CrossRef Google Scholar

Ruys, T., ‘When law meets power: the limits of public international law and the recourse to force’, in Claes, E., Devroe, W. and Keirsbilck, B. (eds.), Limits of the law (Berlin: Springer, 2009), pp. 253–72Google Scholar

Gazzini, T., ‘The expanding law of self-defence’, (2006) 11 Journal of Conflict and Security Law343–59Google Scholar

Weisbord, N., ‘Prosecuting aggression’ (2008) 49 Harvard International Law Journal161–220, at 169Google Scholar

Solera, O., Defining the crime of aggression (London: Cameron May, 2007), pp. 201–2Google Scholar

Bjola, C., ‘Legitimating the use of force in international politics: a communicative action perspective’, (2005) 11 European Journal of International Relations266–97CrossRef Google Scholar

Lobel, J., ‘The use of force to respond to terrorist attacks: the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan’, (1999) 24 Yale Journal of International Law537–57Google Scholar

O'Connell, M. E., ‘Rules of evidence for the use of force in international law's new era’, (2006) 100 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law44–7Google Scholar

O'Connell, M. E., ‘Evidence of terror’, (2002) 7 Journal of Conflict and Security Law19–36CrossRef Google Scholar

Green, J. A., ‘Fluctuating evidentiary standards for self-defence in the International Court of Justice, (2009) 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly163–79CrossRef Google Scholar

Fleck, D., ‘Rules of engagement of maritime forces and the limitation of the use of force under the UN Charter’, (1989) 31 German Yearbook of International Law165–86, at 181–2Google Scholar

Simpson, G. J., Great powers and outlaw states: unequal sovereigns in the international legal order (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 326–51CrossRef Google Scholar

Cooper, R., The breaking of nations: order and chaos in the twenty-first century (London: Atlantic Books, 2003)Google Scholar

Bobbitt, P., Terror and consent: the wars for the twenty-first century (London: Penguin Books, 2008)Google Scholar

Simma, B., ‘Foreword’, in Cannizzaro, E. and Palchetti, P. (eds.), Customary international law on the use of force (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar