Use of Force against Non-state Actors and the Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness of Self-Defence

Paddeu, Federica

doi:10.1017/s0922156516000583

Cited by 30 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Article 51 does not explain in detail armed attack that justify the right to selfdefense but the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice states that armed attack is the main condition that triggers the legal right of self-defense (Paddeu, 2017). Some experts say that the categories of armed attacks in question include invasions, air attacks, large-scale and large-effect of weapon attacks (Tibori Szabo, 2011), or attacks that destroy the most important elements of state such as the economy and security, infrastructure, and the destruction of government buildings (Karl, 2013).…”

Section: A Armed Attackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legality of Israel’s Self-Defense Claim of the Strikes on Hamas

Sefriani

Erlangga²

2022

yst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<div class="WordSection1"><p>The attacks by Israel against Palestine, which took place from 10th to 12th May in the Gaza Strip caused massive losses of civilians. Israel claims that the strikes are forms of self-defense in response to previous attacks by Hamas. This study has two objectives: (1) to analyze the arrangements of self-defense in international law and (2) to find out the legality of Israel’s self-defense claim of the strikes on Hamas on May 10-12, 2021. The study was a juridical-normative legal study with a conceptual, historical, and statutory approaches. The results of the study reveal that (1) self-defense is customary international law contains in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; (2) Israel’s self-defense claim is invalid since it does not comply with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and elements contained in International Customary Law, such as necessary, proportionality, immediacy, and imminence.</p></div><em><br clear="all" /></em>

show abstract

Section: A Armed Attackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legality of Israel’s Self-Defense Claim of the Strikes on Hamas

Sefriani

Erlangga²

2022

yst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paddeu, states that although 'there is not yet a clear establishment as to the lawfulness of right of self-defense against non-state actors, the right of self-defense against non-State actors has been increasingly invoked and accepted in state practice (F. I. Paddeu, 2017). As for Lubell, 'based on the data from the state practice, it appears that non-state actors may be behind armed attacks which result in the invocation of self-defense.…”

Section: Self-defence and Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upholding Human Rights and International Law in the Combat against International Terrorism

2021

JLPG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of human rights protection remains a big puzzle in the combat contrary to international terrorism. Terrorism remains a complicated concept that has posed great challenges in countering without compromising the human rights. Some of the methods used by states leaved a lot to be desired under international law. It is another issue for states to be seen countering terrorism which in most cases is not state actors but using the UN Charter and its systems to justify their actions. It is prohibited in the United Nations Charter of 1945 under Article 2(4) for States to adopt the use of force among themselves in cases of self-defense. UN Charter under Article 51 does not provide for non-state actors for instance terrorists and this has posed a great challenge to the implementation of various Treaties and Conventions. States' attacks against non-state actors continue to take place without any condemnation. Human rights have been violated in the pursuit of terrorists and the act has not been condemned. What then is supposed to be done?, several counter-terrorism measures have been putted in place but there is also an argument that it is close to impossible to combat terrorism without compromising human rights. In other words, countering terrorism is synonymous with violating human rights and international law. These contradictions among others make one wonder whether it's the inefficiency of the prevailing laws or mere international politics that is making the combat against terrorism a complex matter.

show abstract

“…A recent example of such a further discussion centres on one of these circumstances: self-defence. SeePaddeu (2015);Paddeu (2017);, but also Christakis andBannelier (2007);Christakis and Bannelier (2009);and Van Steenberghe (2012).108 Crawford's Second report, supra n.106, p. 60, para. 230; Crawford (1999), p. 444;), p. 303.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

May the Force Be with You: The Legal Classification of Intervention by Invitation

Visser

2019

Neth Int Law Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a truth universally acknowledged that states can consent to the military presence of other states on their territory. This is better known as intervention by invitation. Yet many issues surrounding this concept remain unclear or are too easily accepted, e.g. its name and its place within the rules of jus ad bellum. This article seeks to clarify and resolve these issues. First, an analysis is conducted into what the two terms intervention and invitation actually entail. The term intervention is contrasted with the use of force and the entire concept of intervention by invitation is differentiated from collective self-defence. It is concluded that the threshold of force has been met and thus the focus should be placed on the rules regulating this field of law, rather than the rules of non-intervention. The concept would be more aptly labelled as the use of force by invitation. Second, this article examines where intervention by invitation finds its place in relation to the prohibition of the use of force. Alternative perspectives are investigated encompassing the scope of Article 2(4) UN Charter and the circumstances precluding wrongfulness under the rules of state responsibility, of which consent is of particular relevance here. This article concludes that intervention by invitation falls outside the scope of Article 2(4) as the force is not used within international relations. The prohibition of the use of force therefore does not apply to intervention by invitation. Consequently, an action of intervention by invitation is legal.

show abstract

Use of Force against Non-state Actors and the Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness of Self-Defence

Cited by 30 publications

References 22 publications

The Legality of Israel’s Self-Defense Claim of the Strikes on Hamas

The Legality of Israel’s Self-Defense Claim of the Strikes on Hamas

Upholding Human Rights and International Law in the Combat against International Terrorism

May the Force Be with You: The Legal Classification of Intervention by Invitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About