LESSON 19 - NON-USE OF FORCE

Hello, thank you for joining me on my YouTube channel. My name is Christiana Sagie. On this channel, I will be teaching about international law and these teachings will be in the form of short weekly lecture series. Over time, I will be surfacing varied concepts of international law. When and where applicable, these concepts will be analyzed and brought to you as it relates to current trends in international law as they arise. At the end of this lecture, you will find the transcript of the lecture in the link below. Also, for current trend and analysis in international law, you can subscribe to my blog. All the details you will find in the comment section below. For the 19th lecture in this lecture series, we'll be addressing the prohibition on the use of force. We have severally noted over the course of this lecture series that for the international order to function effectively, there has to be respect for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of other sovereign states. This is a bedrock principle of international law. In this lecture, we're going to be reiterating the foundational importance of territorial sovereignty by expanding on the prohibition of use of force. In doing this, we will be addressing the meaning, the source, and justification, if any, for the use of force. So to the first issue, the source. The prohibition on the use of force takes root in customary international law, which we explored in lesson three. In contemporary international law, this prohibition is entrenched in the UN Charter. White states in Article 2.4 that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations. The prohibition that we see contained in Article 2.4 is twofold. The prohibition of one, the threats of use of force, and two, the use of force. Regarding the threats to use force, the ICJ held in paragraph 47 of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons advisory opinion that if the envisaged use of force is itself unlawful, the stated readiness to use it will be a threat prohibited under Article 2.4. The notions of threats and use of force under Article 2.4 of the Charter stand together in the sense that if the use of force itself in a given case is illegal for whatever reason, the threat to use such force will likewise be illegal. In assessing whether or not there has been a violation of Article 2.4, the following factors have to be determined. A, the type of force used. Force referred to in Article 2.4 of the UN Charter refers strictly to armed military force. Other forms of cohesion such as economic or political cohesion may infer an intervention but would not be deemed to have violated the principle of non-use of force. For more on intervention, see our earlier lesson, Lesson 9. Such military action would include incursion of state troops and border crossing. The next factor to be determined will be the context in which the force was used. For the use of force to come within the ambit of Article 2.4, such use of force must be perpetrated in the context of international relations. This therefore rules out interstate conflict. In the context of international relations, for such use of force to be regarded as a violation of the prohibition spelled out in Article 2.4, such use of force must be directed against the territory of another state. The next issue that we would like to expand on is, are there ever any justifications for the use of force? There are some sets of situations where the use of force may be deemed allowable. One of such situations is with the consent of a sovereign state. The issue of consent was a focal point of reference in the case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. In this case, the ICJ had to determine whether the DRC consented to the presence of Ugandan troops in certain parts of the DRC. From the submission of both parties and the ruling of the court, it was determined that for armed force to be deemed consensual, the armed activities have to occur within the specific timeline and geographical location clearly defined. This situation is not uncommon and would likely arise out of an ad hoc invitation of a sovereign state or competent government to another sovereign state to aid in a civil war or a fight against terrorist groups within the geography of the inviting state. A situation of use of force allowable by consent of a state can also arise out of treaty obligations. Another example of justification of the use of force is the right to self-defense. So this is a right that has its roots in customary international law and is entrenched in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent rights of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. For the right to self-defense to be triggered, a number of criteria must be met. One, it must be a response to an armed attack and such response must be directed only at the state responsible for the armed attack. And such response in exercising the right to self-defense must meet the threshold of necessity and proportionality. Another justification for the use of force is enforcement action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. So the Security Council has extensive power in curbing acts of aggression or acts that threaten or breach the peace of the international community. According to Article 42, the Security Council may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by sea, air, or land forces of members of the United Nations. So this provision implies that the use of force sanctioned by the Security Council under its Chapter 6 powers adding a beat to maintain or restore international peace and security will be justified as not inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. So there are also some other more controversial areas that some scholars have argued may be sufficient justification for the use of force, including humanitarian intervention and even cases of protection of nationals abroad. These are arguable situations that the use of force may be justified. In this lecture, we have expanded on the concept of non-use of force, which we addressed briefly in Lesson 8 on territorial sovereignty, Lesson 9 on non-intervention, and Lesson 15 on humanitarian intervention. In this lesson, we have explored its meaning, its source, and some justification for the use of force. So I want to say thank you so very much for joining in. Remember to like, share, subscribe, leave your comments in the comment section below, and hit the notification bell so that you're notified when there's a new video. We would also like to connect with you on Facebook and Twitter and let us know the content you'd like to see. Thank you.