The modalities of individual self-defence

Solving the enigma

“…On the contrary, as Dinstein argued the gap between Article 2(4) ("use of force") and Article 51 ("armed attack") leads to "very little effective protection against States violating the prohibition of the use of force, as long as they do not resort to an armed attack" 669 . This is because it would encourage States to engage in a series of small-scale military attacks, in the hope that they could do so without being subject to defensive responses, suggesting rather the recourse to an "on the spot" forcible defence by the attacked State, under the conditions of necessity, proportionality and immediacy 670 . Thus, the legal value of this obiter dictum is more properly situated in the context of self-defence -as it was clarified in the Separate Opinion of Judge Simma -dealing with the problem of the gap of the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) and the right of self-defence as recognised in Article 51 of the UN Charter.…”