QUESTION 1
a) The United Nations Charter essentially governs international law's stance on the
use of force. The Charter's Article 2(4) stipulates 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." According to this concept, a state
cannot employ force against another state unless one of the exceptions allowed by
international law applies.
b) There exist specific situations in which a state may depart from the overall ban on
the employment of force. Self-defence, collective security measures approved by the
UN Security Council, and actions carried out with the approval of the state whose
territory the force is being deployed are among these exclusions.
1. Self-defence: States are entitled to the inherent right of self-defence against an
armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, using force in self-
defence ought to be justified, appropriate for the situation, and reported to the
Security Council.
2. Collective security measures: In accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
the Security Council is empowered to approve the use of force in order to preserve
or restore global peace and security. States that threaten or violate international
peace and security may be subject to these actions.
3. Consent of the state:
A. state may authorize the use of force by another state on its territory. This consent
can be explicit, as in the case of military assistance or intervention, or implicit
through acquiescence when a state fails to prevent another state's use of force.
c) With the exception of self-defence, the Republic of Airoterp may try to defend its
acts. It alleges that the terrorist Diaprem, whom they murdered, was in charge of
several attacks inside its borders that claimed the lives of over a hundred people. It
may claim that it was acting in self-defence if the Republic of Airoterp can
demonstrate that these attacks qualified as an armed attack. If the threat was
deemed to be imminent, if all non-lethal options for defence had been exhausted,
and if the use of force was appropriate given the circumstances, they would be the
main factors to take into account in this situation. But it's crucial to remember that
using force in self-defence has to happen instantly and when it's required to stop an
ongoing attack. Reports indicate that Diaprem was unarmed when he was shot and
killed. If it is determined that there was no immediate threat to the Republic of
Airoterp's security at the time of the killing, it could be difficult for the Republic of
Airoterp to justify its actions as self-defence under international law. The Republic of
Airoterp is unable to defend its conduct in accordance with the other force
exclusions. Nothing indicates that the Republic of Aibmaz agreed to the use of force
inside its borders, nor is there any proof that the Security Council approved any
collective security actions.
a) The United Nations Charter essentially governs international law's stance on the
use of force. The Charter's Article 2(4) stipulates 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." According to this concept, a state
cannot employ force against another state unless one of the exceptions allowed by
international law applies.
b) There exist specific situations in which a state may depart from the overall ban on
the employment of force. Self-defence, collective security measures approved by the
UN Security Council, and actions carried out with the approval of the state whose
territory the force is being deployed are among these exclusions.
1. Self-defence: States are entitled to the inherent right of self-defence against an
armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, using force in self-
defence ought to be justified, appropriate for the situation, and reported to the
Security Council.
2. Collective security measures: In accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter,
the Security Council is empowered to approve the use of force in order to preserve
or restore global peace and security. States that threaten or violate international
peace and security may be subject to these actions.
3. Consent of the state:
A. state may authorize the use of force by another state on its territory. This consent
can be explicit, as in the case of military assistance or intervention, or implicit
through acquiescence when a state fails to prevent another state's use of force.
c) With the exception of self-defence, the Republic of Airoterp may try to defend its
acts. It alleges that the terrorist Diaprem, whom they murdered, was in charge of
several attacks inside its borders that claimed the lives of over a hundred people. It
may claim that it was acting in self-defence if the Republic of Airoterp can
demonstrate that these attacks qualified as an armed attack. If the threat was
deemed to be imminent, if all non-lethal options for defence had been exhausted,
and if the use of force was appropriate given the circumstances, they would be the
main factors to take into account in this situation. But it's crucial to remember that
using force in self-defence has to happen instantly and when it's required to stop an
ongoing attack. Reports indicate that Diaprem was unarmed when he was shot and
killed. If it is determined that there was no immediate threat to the Republic of
Airoterp's security at the time of the killing, it could be difficult for the Republic of
Airoterp to justify its actions as self-defence under international law. The Republic of
Airoterp is unable to defend its conduct in accordance with the other force
exclusions. Nothing indicates that the Republic of Aibmaz agreed to the use of force
inside its borders, nor is there any proof that the Security Council approved any
collective security actions.
