Limits of international law in relation to the use of force

Petronila A.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Educational studies Case study

Free quote online

Case study Format .doc

Limits of international law in relation to the use of force

Download

Read an extract

Themes

International law, Countries, Force, legal advisor, UN body

Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract

Abstract

Countries are allowed within the charter to build up self defence. For example the USA, recently disobeyed this. The legal advisor the state John Ballinger III stated that: ‘The global war on terror-to which some have objected, is not intended to be a legal state. Article 51 in the charter provides that: “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. For example the United States can wage a war on terrorists and use force to crack them down . Before acting so, the states have considered that the terrorists pose international security threats to the world as a whole. Therefore they expect cooperation from the international community to help them fight terrorists . The clause in the charter that condemns the use of force is therefore undermined and not adhered.

However there many challenge the UN body is experiencing so many challenges that keeping to the clauses of the charter. The charter was initiated to ensure disarmation and proliferation. Even though the measures have been put to into writing but no countries are adhering to them. This paper finds out whether the UN charter has a provision that allow countries to respond to attacks from terror groups is not clear.

Introduction
Limits of international law
Use of force
Humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect
New use of force doctrines, against states that harbour terrorist activities
The absence of armed attack
Conclusion

Get this table of contents for free after login.

Extract

[...] The international community through the United Nations soldiers can never sit back and watch innocent citizens suffer. They are obliged to use force if there many citizens dying in war[5]. Favor instance in Kosovo, the humanitarian activists' out cried for the forces to intervene and save the citizens. Some other cases that required intervention by use of force includes: India East Pakistan 1971, Vietnam Cambodia 1978 and Tanzania Uganda. United States for example have not embraced the prohibition on the use of force. [...]

[...] Border disputes have led to the use of force. Israel and Palestine have been fighting for a very long time over territorial borders. Recently Kenya invaded Somalia on what it terms as protecting its borders. In the Far east, north and South Korea are on the brink of war. The north has officially waged a war against the south. They even prepared their missiles in case the USA as a superpower tries to intervene.[8] The legal advisor the state John Ballinger III stated that: global war on terror-to which some have objected, is not intended to be a legal state. [...]

[...] Limits of international law in relation to the use of force Countries are allowed within the charter to build up self defence. For example the USA, recently disobeyed this. The legal advisor the state John Ballinger III stated that: global war on terror-to which some have objected, is not intended to be a legal state. Article 51 in the charter provides that: “nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”. [...]

[...] Some Aspect of the Use of Force in Maritime Law Enforcement. (3th edn Oxford press 2013) Judith, Gardam, Necessity, Proportionality and Use of Force by States (4th edition, Cambridge University Press 2009). Kyle, Haynes, “Lame Dukes and Coercive Diplomacy Do Executive Term Limits Reduce the Effectiveness of Democratic Threats” (5th edn , Cambridge University Pres2012) Marc, Weller, Iraq and the use of force in international law. (1st edition, Oxford University Press 2010.) Michael, Smith, “Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on Normative Framework” (5th ed Jayson & sons2006) Myra, Williamson, Terrorist, War and International Law: The Legality of the Use of Force against Afghanistan In 2001, (1st ed. [...]

[...] The convention known as “biological weapons convention of 192' and ‘chemical weapons conventions” do prohibit possession of these weapons[7]. And if by nay chance they possess them, they must destroy them according to the provisions in this convention. But these agreements did allow countries and states to chase their dreams of developing these weapons and require that they are used only in peace missions. International organisations and the governments have always expressed their concerns about the content of this charter. These technologies can put them in positions to producing dangerous weapons. [...]

doc