Difference between revisions of "Use of force"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(editin references)
(editing references)
! scope="col" style="background-color:#ffffaa;"| Use of force
|[[File:Maki-fire-station-15.svg|left|frameless|200x200px]]Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prescribes States to “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”.<ref>Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS 16 (UN Charter) art. 2(4)</ref> This prohibition is reflective of customary international law<ref>''Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'' (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136, para 87; ''Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America)'' (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 187–190.</ref> and it is frequently described as a peremptory norm of international law.<ref>See, for example,The International Law Commission, 'Document A/6309/ Rev.1: Reports of the International Law Commission on the second part of its seventeenth and on its eighteenth session' [http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1966_v2.pdf Yearbook of the International Law Commission] Vol. II (1966) 247 (“The law of the Charter concerning the prohibition of the use of force in itself constitutes a conspicuous example of a rule in international law having the character of jus cogens”); Christine Gray, ''International Law and the use of force'' (OUP 2018) 32; Oliver Corten, ''The Law against War'' (Hart Pub. 2010) 44; Oliver Dörr and Albrecgr Randelzhofer, ‘Article 2(4)’ in Bruno Simma et al (eds), ''The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary'' Vol I (OUP 2012), 231, para 67 (“the prohibition of the use of force laid down in Art. 2 (4) is usually acknowledged in State practice and legal doctrine to have a peremptory character, and thus to be part of the international ''ius cogens''”).</ref> However, the notion of “force” in this context is limited to armed force<ref>Oliver Dörr and Albrecht Randelzhofer, ‘Article 2(4)’ in Bruno Simma et al (eds), ''The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary'' Vol I (OUP 2012), 208, para 16 (“The term [‘force’] does not cover any possible kind of force, but is, according to the correct and prevailing view, limited to armed force.”).</ref>, and to operations whose scale and effects are comparable to the use of armed force.<ref>Cf. Tallinn Manual 2.0, rule 69 (“A cyber operation constitutes a use of force when its scale and effects are comparable to non-cyber operations rising to the level of a use of force.”).</ref>
At present, the law is unsettled on the issue whether cyber operations with no physical effects may amount to a prohibited use of force. It has been argued that disruptive cyber operations of this kind fall under the scope of Article 2(4) if the resulting disruption is “significant enough to affect state security”.<ref>Marco Roscini, ''Cyber Operations and the Use of Force in International Law'' (OUP 2014) 55.</ref> Undoubtedly, one of the purposes of the prohibition of force under international law is to safeguard the national security of the potentially affected States.<ref>[ADD REF].</ref> However, many forms of outside interference including various forms of political and economic coercion may affect the national security of the victim State. And yet, the drafters of the UN Charter had expressly rejected the proposal to extend the prohibition of force beyond the strict confines of military (or armed) force.<ref>Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization (1945), vol VI, 334.</ref>