Self Defence In International Law

Self-defense and the right to go to war. Originally published: New York: Praeger, [1958]. xv, 294 pp. Bowett observes that the use or threat of force by any state can be a delict, an approved sanction, or a measure taken in self-defense. He examines the evolution of self-defense doctrine in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, with the assumption of the existence of a state's unlimited 'right' to go to war. He then attempts to outline the limited and provisional effects of this right under the U.N. Charter. This book was written after Bowett's term as a United Nations legal officer from 1957-1959. "Throughout the work there is a refusal to dogmatize or to state in absolute terms any aspect of the 'privilege' of self-defence in its present context. (...) [Bowett] is to be congratulated on producing a timely and scholarly survey of one of the most fundamental, and often abused, sovereign rights known to international law." --K.R. Simmonds, British Year Book of International Law 34 (1958) 432. SIR DEREK WILLIAM BOWETT [1927-2009], an international lawyer, was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1969-1982 and Whewell Professor of International Law, Cambridge, from 1981-1991. He was awarded a CBE in 1983 and a knighthood in 1998. He is the author of The Law of International Institutions (1963), United Nations Forces: A Legal Study (1964), The Law of the Sea (1967), The Search for Peace (1972) and The International Court of Justice (1996).

Yoram Dinstein's influential textbook is an indispensable guide to the legal issues of war and peace, armed attack, self-defence and enforcement measures taken under the aegis of the Security Council. This fifth edition incorporates recent treaties such as the Kampala amendments of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, new case law from the International Court of Justice and other tribunals, and contemporary doctrinal debates. Several new supplementary sections are also included, which take into account recent conflicts around the world, and consideration is given to new resolutions of the Security Council. With many segments having been rewritten to reflect recent State practice, this book remains a wide-ranging and highly readable introduction to the legal issues surrounding war and self-defence.

Determining the earliest point in time at which international law authorises a state to exercise its inherent right of self-defence is an issue which has been debated, but unsatisfactorily reasoned, by scholars and states since the 1960’s. Yet it remains arguably the most pressing question of law that faces the international community. This book unravels the legal and factual complications which have obscured the answer to this question. In contrast to most other works, it takes an historic approach by tracing the evolution of the rights, rules and principles of international law which have governed the use of force by states since the 16th century. Its emphasis on self-defence provides the reader with a new and complete understanding of how and why the international legal framework limits defensive force to repelling an imminent threat or use of offensive force which is directed at the territory of a state. Taking an historic approach enables this book to resurrect an understanding of the human defensive instinct which has guided the formation of the international law of self-defence. It also explains the true legal nature and scope of the inherent right of self-defence, of anticipatory self-defence and provides a definition of the legal commencement of an armed attack for the purpose of Article 51 of the Charter. Finally, the reader will receive a unique source of research materials and analysis of state practice and of scholarly works concerning self-defence and the use of force since the 16th century, which is suitable for all readers of international law around the world.

Drawing from scholarship across law, history, politics and philosophy, Self-Defence in International and Criminal Law provides a broad and interdisciplinary approach to the doctrine of self-defence in both domestic criminal and international law. It focuses on the requirement of imminence, which deals with the question of when individuals or States may legitimately resort to defensive force against a serious danger or harm. In both national and international law the imminence requirement, if strictly applied, renders any defensive measure taken in anticipation of a would-be attack illegal. Recently, however, attempts have been made to relax the temporal requirement of the self-defence doctrine (imminence) with a view to allowing individuals or States to employ deadly force to arrest an anticipated threat when they ‘believe’ that using ‘pre-emptive’ lethal force would be the only way to thwart an expected harm. In domestic criminal law, it has been argued that it is necessary to relax the rule of imminence in domestic violence cases where women employ lethal force against their abusive partners when there is no imminent threat to justify defensive force. At the international level, while there has long been controversy as to the justifiability of pre-emptive force in non-confrontational settings, following the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration’s ‘war on terror’ policy radically shifted the focus from the notion of anticipation to that of prevention, making it clear that, if necessary, it would invoke unilateral force against emerging threats before they are fully formed. The book surveys the roots, role, rationale, and objectives of self-defence and questions whether the requirement of imminence should be removed from the traditional contours of the self-defence doctrine in national and international law.

States invariably justify using force extraterritorially by reference to their right of self-defence. In doing so, they accept that the exercise of this right is conditioned by the customary international law requirements of necessity and proportionality. However, these requirements are notorious for being normatively indeterminate and operationally complex. As a breach of either requirement renders ostensibly defensive action unlawful, increased determinacy regarding their scope and substance is crucial to how international law constrains military force. This book examines the conceptual meaning, content, and practical application of necessity and proportionality as they relate to the right of self-defence following the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945. It provides a coherent and up-to-date description of the applicable contemporary international law and proposes an analytical framework to guide its operation and appraisal. This book argues that necessity and proportionality are conceptually distinct and must be applied in the foregoing order to avoid an insufficient 'catch-all' description of legality or illegality. Necessity determines whether defensive force may be used to respond to an armed attack and where it must be directed. Proportionality governs how much total force is permissible and prohibits excessive responses. Both requirements are shown to apply on an ongoing basis throughout the duration of an armed conflict prompted by self-defence. Compliance with necessity and proportionality ensures that the purposes of self-defence are met, and nothing more, and that defensive force is not unduly disruptive to third party interests and to international peace and security.

Based on author's thesis (doctoral - European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany, 2016) issued under title: The right to personal self-defence as a general principle of law and its general application in international human rights law --Verso of title page.

Determining the earliest point in time at which international law authorises a state to exercise its inherent right of self-defence is an issue which has been debated, but unsatisfactorily reasoned, by scholars and states since the 1960’s. Yet it remains arguably the most pressing question of law that faces the international community. This book unravels the legal and factual complications which have obscured the answer to this question. In contrast to most other works, it takes an historic approach by tracing the evolution of the rights, rules and principles of international law which have governed the use of force by states since the 16th century. Its emphasis on self-defence provides the reader with a new and complete understanding of how and why the international legal framework limits defensive force to repelling an imminent threat or use of offensive force which is directed at the territory of a state. Taking an historic approach enables this book to resurrect an understanding of the human defensive instinct which has guided the formation of the international law of self-defence. It also explains the true legal nature and scope of the inherent right of self-defence, of anticipatory self-defence and provides a definition of the legal commencement of an armed attack for the purpose of Article 51 of the Charter. Finally, the reader will receive a unique source of research materials and analysis of state practice and of scholarly works concerning self-defence and the use of force since the 16th century, which is suitable for all readers of international law around the world.

The legality of preemptive strikes is one of the most controversial questions of contemporary international law. At the core of this controversy stands the temporal dimension of self-defence: when and for how long can a state defend itself against an armed attack? Can it resort to armed force before such an attack occurs? Is anticipatory action covered by the rules of self-defence or should it be treated as a different concept? This book examines whether anticipatory action in self-defence is part of customary international law and, if so, under what conditions. The pre-Charter concept of anticipatory action is demarcated and then assessed against post-Charter state practice. Several instances of self-defence – both anticipatory and remedial – are examined to elucidate the rules governing the temporal dimension of the right. The Six-Day War (1967), the Israeli bombing of an Iraqi reactor (1981), the US invasion of Iraq (2003) and other instances of state practice are given thorough attention.