The use of force in international law and its relation to the right of self-defence [Dr. Idris]

1. International law regulates the use of force in two important respects. First, international rules determine the limited circumstances in which states have a legitimate claim to resort forceful measures. This body of law is often referred to as jus ad bellum. Second, international law also imposes limitations on the use of armed force once conflict has broken out. These rules are known as jus in bello. Attempts to regulate the use of force have been one of the major historical influences on the development of international law;

2. The basic position of international law in relation to the regulation of the right to resort to force is encapsulated in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter provides a comprehensive prohibition on the use of force as stated by the article : “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 UN” – the Heart of Charter … is dead ? Who killed that?

3. Article 2(4) is a fundamental principle of the UN Charter and has come to be accepted as a norm of customary international law. Although it establishes a general prohibition, it is important to note that Article 2(4) is not an absolute prohibition on the use of force. The UN Charter includes four principle exceptions to Article 2(4) are : (i)Article 51 and the right of individual or collective self-defence; (ii)Chapter VII and the right of the Security Council to take collective action on behalf of the member states of the UN; (iii)Article 10,11, and 14 which incorporate a role for the General Assembly of the UN to make recommendation for forceful measures by UN members against other states; and

(iv)Article 53 which allows for regional organizations to undertake forceful action with the prior authorization of the SC;

4. The prohibition on the use of force has been repeatedly reaffirmed in General Assembly resolutions (GA resolution 1970, GA resolution 1974), ICJ decisions (Corfu Channel Case, Tehran Hostages Case, Nicaragua Case, the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, the Legality of Use of Force by Nato, and others), several decisions in juristic writings and by states. The Prohibition in Article 2(4) purports to cover all uses of force and threats to use force.

5. The use of force by a state in self-defence has long been regarded as a lawful under customary international law. The Caroline (1837) is a seminal case in this area. It recognizes the right of self-defence in circumstances of overwhelming necessity and where the response is proportional to threat. The case involved the Caroline, an American ship that was used to supply amunitions to Canadian rebels during the Canadian rebellion of 1837. One night a British officer ordered that the Caroline be boarded while it was moored at Fort Schlosser, NY. The ship’s crew was assaulted and the vessel was burnt and sent over the Niagara Falls. The British ambassador to the US pleaded self-defence while the US argued that self-defence may be exercise only when the “necessity is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” (ie the action taken must be the only option available in the circumstances). The contention was accepted and reflects customary international law to this day;

6. The ICJ desscribed Article 2(4) as representing a norm of CIL binding on all states in the international community, regardless of whether or not they are members of the UN. The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of evidence of state practice and opinio juris in a number of key instruments that have adopted by international community.

7. The right of self-defence is contained in Article 51 of the UN Charter. It states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the SC and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the SC under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security;

8. The scope of the right of self-defence has been the subject of considerable debate among jurists. Therefore, there are narrow and broad interpretations are described in the literatures and international journals. Based on the narrow approach, resort ti to use of force in self-defence is restricted to circumstances where “an armed attack has actually occurred”. In interpreting Article 51 narrowly, proponents of this view consider the customary international law right of self-defence to have been superseded by the Charther provision. The right of pre-emptive strike or anticipatory self-defence is therefore specifically excluded under this approach. A narrow approach is attractive to those concerned that a return to customary law notions of self-defence may encourage aggression by states

seeking to justify the use of force in self-defence where no actual armed attact has occurred. Others contend that such a narrow approach is unrealistic in an age when a first strike on a state can obliterate its state’s capacity to act in self-defence. On this point some measures of anticipatory self-defence is permissible so long as it is proportionate to the actual threat;

9. On the other hand, expansive view of self-defence, the use of force is justified where any military action is taken against a state by its enemy. This interpretation has been used to justify pre-emptive strikes against aggressive states that are threatening the use of force. Israel’s use of force in the Six Day War of 1967 is a useful example. There, Israel pointed to threatening behaviour from neighbouring Arab states, Israel noted : Egypt’s decision to withdraw UN emergency force from the Sinai Peninsula, the large-scale deployment of troops and equipment by Arab states on Israel’s border with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, the closure by Egypt of the Straits of Tiran to Israel’s shipping. Israel justified its military action by suggesting that the above acts represented the commencement of an armed attact against the state of Israel. What about Falkland Island Case, 9/11 incident for global war against terrorism.

10. The key requirements for the right of self-defence is customary international law under circumstances : (a)armed attack against state territory; (b)proportionality and necessity; (c)use of force in defence; (d)report to the SC …

Review untuk UAS :

I. Pengakuan (Recognition) :

1. Pengertian (Fungsi dan Doktrin Pengakuan)2. Pengakuan De Jure dan De Facto3. Akibat Hukum dari Pengakuan;4. Pengakuan Negara dan Pemerintah Baru5. Pengakuan terhadap Insurgensi dan Beligerensi6. Pengakuan terhadap Wilayah dan Non-Pengakuan7. Kasus : a.l.

- Tinoco Arbitration Case (UK v. Costa Rica), 18 October 1923 - Indonesian Case 1946- Panama Case- ICJ East Timor Case, Portugal vs Australia, 1995- Declaration of Independence Kosovo, ICJ Advisory

Opinion, 2010

1.Apa yang Sdr ketahui tentang pengakuan dihubungkan dengan kasus Palestina dan Kosovo ?

II. Negara dan Kedaulatan Teritorial (State and Territorial Sovereignty)

1. Syarat-syarat terbentuknya negara2. Kedaulatan Negara dan Hak Berdaulat3. Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Darat4. Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Laut (Laut Teritorial,

Perairan Kepulauan, Perairan Pedalaman, Zona Tambahan, Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif, Laut Lepas)

5. Ruang Udara dan Ruang Angkasa6. Pembatasan Kedaulatan Teritorial: Imunitas 7. Kasus : a.l. Island of Palmas Case 1928

Western Sahara Case 1975 Sipadan Ligitan Case 2002 ICJ East Timor Case, Portugal vs Australia, 1995 Arrest Warrant Case, ICJ, 2002

2.Bagaimana Kedaulatan territorial menurut Max Huber dalam kasus Palmas 1928?Bagaimana kedaulatan Negara di laut dan di udara/ruang angkasa ?

III. Jurisdiksi (Jurisdiction) :

1. Pengertian : 2. Beberapa Prinsip Jurisdiksi :

a.Jurisdiksi Teritorial b.Jurisdiksi Nasionalitas c.Jurisdiksi Perlindungan d.Jurisdiksi Universal e.Jurisdiksi berdasarkan Perjanjian Internasional f. Jurisdiksi di Laut dan Ruang Udara/Angkasa

3. Kasus : a.l : - Lotus Case 1927 - Eichmann Case 1961- Pinochet Case, House of Lord, 2000- Construction of Wall Case, ICJ Advisory Opinion,

2004 : Occupied Palestinian Territory

3. Jelaskan prinsip-prinsip jurisdiksi yang Sdr ketahui dan bagaimana perkembangan jurisdiski universal!

Bagaimana menurut Sdr tentang kasus Perompak Somalia, jurisdiksi apa yang berlaku?

IV. Tanggung Jawab Negara (State Responsibility)

1. Pengertian, Teori, dan Bentuk2.Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran

Kewajiban dalam Perjanjian Internasional

3.Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran Hukum Internasional dan Akibat Hukumnya

4.Perkembangan Draft Articles on State Responsibility 2001

Kasus : a.l. : 1. Chorzow Factory Case, PCIJ2. Trail Smelter Case 19413. Corfu Channel Case 19494. Barcelona Traction Light 19706. Teheran Hostage Case ICJ, 1980 : Duty of State in

Omission 6. Rainbow Warrior Case (France-New Zealand

Arbitration Tribunal, 1990) : duty to punish 5. Genocide Case 2007 7. Estrella vs Uruguay, IAComHR : duty to punish

4.Jelaskan perkembangan pengaturan hukum internasional tentang tanggung jawab Negara ! pelajari Draft Articles on State Responsibility tahun 2001

Jelaskan kasus tentang mekanisme tanggung jawab Negara yang Sdr ketahui

V. Suksesi Negara (State Succession)

1.Pengertian : Pelajari Konvensi Wina 19782.Sebab-sebab terjadinya Suksesi Negara3.Akibat Hukum Suksesi Negara

Kasus : a.l. : East Timor Case 1999 Yugoslavia

Uni Soviet

5.Apa yang dimaksud dengan suksesi Negara ? Jelaskan dengan disertai contoh-contohnya !

VI. Perkembangan Hukum Internasional :

1. Hukum HAM Internasional/Hukum Humaniter Internasional :

a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948b. International Covenant on Economic,

Cultural, and Social Rights (ICECSR)1966;c. International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights (ICCPR)1966d. Konvensi-Konvensi Jenewa 1949 dan

Protokol Tambahan I+II 1977e. Statuta Roma 1998 tentang Mahkamah

Kejahatan Internasional (ICC-International Criminal Court): Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, the Crime of Aggreesion … the most serious crimes of international concerns

2. Hukum Lingkungan Internasional/Hukum Nuklir Internasional :

a. Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources 1962, Res MU PBB No. 1803

b. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang Lingkungan Hidup Manusia (UN Conference on Human Environment) : Stockholm Declaration 1972

c. World Charter for Nature 1982d. Konvensi Hukum Laut (UNCLOS) 1982e. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang

Lingkungan dan Pembangunan (UNCED) 1992:

a. Agenda 21b. UNCBDc. UNFCCC

d. Rio Declaratione. Forest Principles

Johannesburg Declaration 2002 tentang Prinsip-Prinsip Pembangunan Berkelanjutan (Sustainable Development)

f. Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, 1963

g. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968

h. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996

i. Konvensi Wina tentang Nuklir dan Resolusi-Resolusi DK PBB

6.Apa yang Sdr ketahui perkembangan hukum internasional mengenai hukum humaniter, HAM, Lingkungan global, dan perdagangan internasional ?

Semua tugas dikirim ke email: idris_idris@yahoo.com