Use of force
Since the end of WWII, the use of force in international law has changed drastically. In the
past, states often used force as a normal part of foreign policy. However, this changed with the
adoption of the UN Charter in 1945. Article 2(4) of the Charter introduced a general ban on the
threat or use of force, specifically protecting the territorial integrity and political independence
of all states.
What counts as force?
• Any physical or military force counts
• Economic or political pressure DOES NOT count as force
o So, for example, trumps sanction and polices does not equate to force.
There are different types of force:
• Threats: Saying or implying that you will use force, still counts.
o Trump threatening to annex Greenland.
• Aggression: This is actual armed force.
o Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
• Aggressive Acts: Invasion or occupation
o Hitler’s annexing of Poland
o USA’s invasion of Iraq
• Bombardment: Use of weapons directly, like airstrikes
o Obama’s airstrike on Syria
• Blockades of Ports/Coasts: Armed force in order to cut off ports and coasts and in
doing so, restricting the movement of people and goods.
o Israel in Gaza.
• Proxy Aggression: When one state allows another state to use its territory to launch
attacks.
o USA in Qatar
o Vietnam War
• State-sponsored mercenaries: using privately funded armed groups to carry out
attacks
o Russia’s Wagner group.
Accepted exceptions
• Collective Security: Chap 7 UN Charter
o UN Security council gives permission for the use of force to be used to maintain
or to restore international security or peace.
o 3 conditions must be met:
▪ There must a real, measurable threat
▪ It must be evident that peaceful solutions were tried and subsequently
failed
▪ All 5 permanent members of the Security council must agree
o If one of the P5 veto’s, then no action can be taken
o Examples:
▪ The Ukraine-Russia war: Russia vetoed UNSC action
▪ Israel-Palestine war: USA often votes against action being taken against
Israel.
• Self-defense (Art 51 of UN Charter):
o Most well known and most used exception
o Conditions for it to be lawful:
▪ There must be an actual real threat (not just hypothetical or imagined)
▪ The threat must have commenced or be imminent
▪ The response or self defence must be necessary and proportionate to the
threat posed.
o Self-defence CANNOT be used as an excise to start a war/occupy another
country’s territory.
Exceptions to the exceptions
These refer to the 4 controversies that generally do not fit into the 2 legally accepted exceptions
but in these cases, force was STILL used. These are often termed as INTERVENTIONS which
is when states interfere in another country’s affairs by using force without justification in terms
of the United Nations.
• Rescue of Nations Abroad:
o Country uses force to rescue its own citizens from danger in another country
without that country’s permission.
o Can be seen as controversial because it is not an act of self-defence or collective
security. It also violates the sovereignty of the host country, and it is done
unilaterally without UN approval.
o Example: USA in Iran 1979
▪ After the Iranian revolution, militants took Americans hostage in the US
embassy and the US then attempted a secret rescue mission. The US
claimed that it was necessary to save its citizens.
▪ Israel in Uganda: Israeli forces entered Uganda to rescue the hijacked
citizens.
• Humanitarian intervention:
o When a country or countries use force in order to prevent or stop a humanitarian
crisis in another country (i.e. genocide, famine, mass-killings).
o Seen as controversial because it violates the country’s sovereignty, UN Charter
does not allow this unless the UNSC does and also some countries may use it
as an excuse to justify an invasion.
o Examples: NATO’S bombing of Kosovo
▪ Was done to stop the “ethnic cleansing” taking place; some deemed it
“morally justified”
• War on terrorists/force against non-state actors:
o Countries using force against terrorist groups, across borders
o Controversial because UN Charter allows for the use of self-defence against
states but not clearly against non-state actors. Some argue that Art 51 should
allow for it and other argue against it.
o Example: US War on terror after 9/11:
▪ US attack in Afghanistan and Iraq; they justified it as self-defence;
however Iraq was not involved in 9/11, Illegal?
• Blurred lines between peacekeeping and enforcement:
o Either the UN or foreign troops are sent into a country “to keep peace” but they
start using force in ways that look like military enforcement.
o Sometimes peacekeeping can become aggressive
o Example:
▪ UN missions in Congo and Mali sometimes crossed the line
▪ French troops in Malawi sometimes intervene under the guise of
peacekeeping.
