HC4 international law
The use of force and how international law changes
today’s learning goals:
1. What is the scope of the prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter?
Wat is de reikwijdte van het verbod op het gebruik van geweld in het VN-Handvest?
2. What is the responsibility to protect?
Wat is de verantwoordelijkheid om te beschermen?
3. What is the scope of the right to self-defence?
Wat is de reikwijdte van het recht op zelfverdediging?
UN charter
WE,THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DETERMINED (bepaald)
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold
sorrow to mankind...’’
Article 1(1)
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security...
2 linked goals: Prohibit individual States from using interstate force and establish an
international organization that can respond to threats and uses of force
The original members are agreeing to giving up their own individual right to use war as a national
policy tool, they were giving up the right to go to war with one another, in exchange for creating
a collecting security system that would act on their behalf when international peace and security
was threaten. So the 2 thing were linked; states were agreeing to give up their right to force
against each other in exchange for creating an institution that would be affected in maintaining
international peace and security.
If the UN security council is not always affective in maintaining international peace and security, does
that give rights to states being able to use force on their own because of the failure of the collective
security system?
It’s still a debate till today
Prohibition of the use of force
Article 2(4)
‘’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
Purposes of the United Nations.’’
, No intensity requirement (single shot over a border)
So the term use of force has no intensity requirement. What I mean by that is, if today a Dutch
soldier fired a bullet on the territory of Germany (even accidentally), that would be a use of force.
You don’t need a major attack to violate article 2(4)
No weapons specified
There are no weapons mentioned in article 2(4) so it applies to any kind of weapon
Significance of article 2(4)
Why was article 2(4) so significant after the WWII?
There are 2 major developments that article 2(4) signified. So, what did the world look like before article
2(4) and how did this article change the legal order?
Two major developments relative to pre-Charter era:
1. Prohibits use of force, not war (Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928))
Before article 2(4) we had something what was known as the Kellogg Briand pact. This is a treaty
that’s been signed by 62 states and it still in force. This treaty, the states that signed it, agreed to
give up using war as a national policy. They agree to stop using war as a way to settle their
differences with each other. The reason why this treaty was drafted is because states were very
concerned about Germany aggression and they wanted to prevent a WWII. So, their solution was
the Kellogg Briand pact. This was a legal development, even if it didn’t prevent WOII. But it also
had some problems, although it was the first-time that states were agreeing to announce war as
a national policy tool, there were 2 problems. The first was that the Kellogg Briand pact
prohibited war. And what you ended up is that you have situations where states were not
declaring war against each other, but they were still using force against each other. And then you
had situations where states were not using force against each other, but they had declared war
against one another. This was problematic, so the article 2(4) gets rid of the word ‘war’ and this
requirement to declare war and it just talk about the use of force.
2. Prohibits threat of force, not just use of force
It prohibits not just the use of force; it prohibits states from threatening to use force against each
other. States are not allowed to threaten to use force against one another.
It’s worth asking whether article 2(4) succeeded at making the world a peaceful place.
Impact:
Concerned with interstate uses of force (not intrastate, which is most common post-1945)
One of its limitations is that it’s concerned with armed conflict between states. Article 2(4)
prohibits the use of force between states, because that was the major concern after WOII.
Successful? Sharp reduction in post-1945 conflict deaths but also great moral failures (e.g.,
Rwandan genocide)
You could say that the article 2(4) is successful in the sense that we have a lot fewer deaths
related to conflicts of today.
The use of force and how international law changes
today’s learning goals:
1. What is the scope of the prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter?
Wat is de reikwijdte van het verbod op het gebruik van geweld in het VN-Handvest?
2. What is the responsibility to protect?
Wat is de verantwoordelijkheid om te beschermen?
3. What is the scope of the right to self-defence?
Wat is de reikwijdte van het recht op zelfverdediging?
UN charter
WE,THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DETERMINED (bepaald)
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold
sorrow to mankind...’’
Article 1(1)
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security...
2 linked goals: Prohibit individual States from using interstate force and establish an
international organization that can respond to threats and uses of force
The original members are agreeing to giving up their own individual right to use war as a national
policy tool, they were giving up the right to go to war with one another, in exchange for creating
a collecting security system that would act on their behalf when international peace and security
was threaten. So the 2 thing were linked; states were agreeing to give up their right to force
against each other in exchange for creating an institution that would be affected in maintaining
international peace and security.
If the UN security council is not always affective in maintaining international peace and security, does
that give rights to states being able to use force on their own because of the failure of the collective
security system?
It’s still a debate till today
Prohibition of the use of force
Article 2(4)
‘’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
Purposes of the United Nations.’’
, No intensity requirement (single shot over a border)
So the term use of force has no intensity requirement. What I mean by that is, if today a Dutch
soldier fired a bullet on the territory of Germany (even accidentally), that would be a use of force.
You don’t need a major attack to violate article 2(4)
No weapons specified
There are no weapons mentioned in article 2(4) so it applies to any kind of weapon
Significance of article 2(4)
Why was article 2(4) so significant after the WWII?
There are 2 major developments that article 2(4) signified. So, what did the world look like before article
2(4) and how did this article change the legal order?
Two major developments relative to pre-Charter era:
1. Prohibits use of force, not war (Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928))
Before article 2(4) we had something what was known as the Kellogg Briand pact. This is a treaty
that’s been signed by 62 states and it still in force. This treaty, the states that signed it, agreed to
give up using war as a national policy. They agree to stop using war as a way to settle their
differences with each other. The reason why this treaty was drafted is because states were very
concerned about Germany aggression and they wanted to prevent a WWII. So, their solution was
the Kellogg Briand pact. This was a legal development, even if it didn’t prevent WOII. But it also
had some problems, although it was the first-time that states were agreeing to announce war as
a national policy tool, there were 2 problems. The first was that the Kellogg Briand pact
prohibited war. And what you ended up is that you have situations where states were not
declaring war against each other, but they were still using force against each other. And then you
had situations where states were not using force against each other, but they had declared war
against one another. This was problematic, so the article 2(4) gets rid of the word ‘war’ and this
requirement to declare war and it just talk about the use of force.
2. Prohibits threat of force, not just use of force
It prohibits not just the use of force; it prohibits states from threatening to use force against each
other. States are not allowed to threaten to use force against one another.
It’s worth asking whether article 2(4) succeeded at making the world a peaceful place.
Impact:
Concerned with interstate uses of force (not intrastate, which is most common post-1945)
One of its limitations is that it’s concerned with armed conflict between states. Article 2(4)
prohibits the use of force between states, because that was the major concern after WOII.
Successful? Sharp reduction in post-1945 conflict deaths but also great moral failures (e.g.,
Rwandan genocide)
You could say that the article 2(4) is successful in the sense that we have a lot fewer deaths
related to conflicts of today.
