This paper builds upon previous research by the author into the mechanics and interpretation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which sought to explain the apparent contradiction between the status of the prohibition as a nonderogable norm of jus cogens and its well-recognised 'exceptions'. Turning to the role of state consent within the prohibition, this paper explores the scope and limits of a State's ability to consent to the use of force within its territoryfor example, by requesting military assistance in the context of a civil war -in light of this mechanical interpretation. The principles of territorial integrity and political independence are integral to the prohibition of force, and the role of consent in restricting the application of these principles, this author argues, has a very key role in determining the 'operating scope' of the prohibition as it applies to a specific State. This paper seeks to explore whether this could mean that certain interventions into a State may still be prohibited even where a State requests these. With these issues in mind, the paper will ultimately consider: (i) whether these limitations exist at all; and (ii) if they do exist, whether they form part of the prohibition of force itself, the principle of nonintervention, or indeed whether there is a standalone prohibition of intervention in civil wars.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.