Critically Evaluate the Regulation of the Use of Force in International Law

QUESTION

 

Critically evaluate the regulation of the use of force in international law in the United Nations charter.

 

Note;   please kindly read the both reading

The instructions for the coursework are given below,

1. Introduction:

• What is law Says about the Use of force Under UN charter (look at article) according to international law. Effectiveness of the prohibition on use of force under UN charter. Give the examples of relevant cases (Please follow the attached Reading clearly )
• Give an overview of the whole essay.

2. How international law regulate the use of force in UN Charter

• How international law developed to monitor the use of force (short description)

3. What are the responsibility of UN security council To maintain peace and security ( discuss briefly )

• Discuss the right to self -defence under UN Charter ( briefly) put Your arguments
• Discuss collective security system briefly with relevant examples
• This is an important part of this essay please put some argument and examples
• Please look at the article 39-51 I hope you will get a good idea.

4. Please make an excellent conclusion

Special note that,

Put references from online journal, books, case law as per relevant. Please don’t cross the 3000 words limit you can write it between 2800- 3000 wo

Word Limit:   3000 words except footnotes and Bibliography

 

ANSWER

Introduction

International law is the critically concerned areas for United Nations. Basically it is a complex and specialised area for over viewing the legal activities on UN throughout the year. The charter of United Nations is an organisation which is greatly involved in helping the settlement of international disputes and tries to form a peaceful environment in the state. The concerned assignment focuses on the regulation of the use of force in international law in case of UN charter.

Scope regarding Prohibition of use of Force

The use of force is controlled by both of the customary and international ad well as treaty law. The principle of the use of force is considered as the critical part of international law. The international law focuses in the impacts of banning of use of armed force in order to emphasise on the principles of use of force.

In accordance with Article 1 of UN Charter all the members of the organization strives to refrain from the use of threat or force for defending itself from any international issues. It helps to maintain international collaboration as well as aids in development of political as well territorial integrity. Inter- state conflict is between state governments of various countries. In accordance with Article 2(4) it strictly deters the use of force in case of international relations[1]. This article is solely related with interstate conflict in which the operation of collective security takes place on the humanitarian ground and for self defense in order to deter from the use of force in international arena.

Controversies

The main controversies arising in this scenario is related with the exact definition of interstate territory and the criteria’s that categorizes particular issue as interstate dispute. For example, during the dispute related with Argentina invading Falkland. The dispute was not categorized as interstate conflict as Falkland was part of Argentina and it was considered to share same territorial boundaries. Another controversy related with implementation of Article 2(4) was related with the meaning of use of force which excludes economic coercion.

Various aspects of international law

Discussion about the international law and Self Defence

In accordance to Article 51 in the UN Charter the members of United Nations are provided with inherent right to individual and collective self defense in case of armed attack which is monitored by the Security Council. The characteristics based which the implementation of this right occurs are related to appropriate response to regular army as well as irregular troops. It also provides collective self defense in case of potential terrorist attack. Although there are certain controversies related with the scope of collective self defense which fails to address the existing customary rights as well as pre-emptive self defense. In accordance with the Article 39 of UN Charter the Security Council must address the issue and qualify the same as the breach of peace or the act of aggression in order to access the collective security force to overcome the situation[2]. After establishment of the act of aggression or breach of peace in that case the state can legitimately acquire the recourse regarding self defense in accordance with the guidelines of the international law.

In the case of Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated V Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80[3], it was an example case of the jurisdiction of the English Court that has arose from a couple accident case while on a sightseeing trip in the country of Egypt. It has been claimed that the husband has been killed while the wife has been injured and she was the claimant. The claimant was given the permission to serve the case by the English proceedings as the couple were UK citizens.

Brussels Convention

The Brussels convention has become an important part of the law of UK because of Section 2(1), under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act, 1982. It has been the replacement of Accession Convention of 1978. The Brussels Convention of 1968 has came into action by 1^st February, 1973 under the European Community of six founding states which were Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy. It has given the criteria which were specific for determining the competent judge amongst the member states.

 

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act (CJJA) 1991

According to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act (CJJA) 1991[4], Section 1(1) provides the power of law towards the Lugano Convention of 1988. The purpose of the Lugano convention that has been found in schedule 3C of the judgement Act, 1982 along with the civil jurisdisdiction has extended the fundamentals of the convention of Brussels to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). However in the protocol 2 of the Convention of Lugano, the parties were responsible for pay following the order of other states which was contracting. There were also some changes that have been made in the Convention of Brussels that comes in action after San Sebastian Convention application for avoiding the no needed divergence between the two convention of Lugano and Brussels[5]. Beside from the changes in terms of content, the legal basis of the law of European jurisdiction in UK has now been found in the European Communities Act, 1972, Section 2 (1).

Effectiveness of prohibition on use of force

The prohibition of use of force is critically analysed in article 2(4) UN charter. The organisation is bound to act according to the principle that all members are bound to their critical international relations to overcome the threats of the use of force. It takes steps against the territorial integrity as well as political independence of any states[6].

The 2(4) UN charter prevents the use of force in terms of international relations between states. In this respect, enforce actions that occur forcibly are undertaken by s state. The prevention actions are taken against various private individuals within a state. Hence the effectiveness of prevention of use of force can be pointer out through the following points.

• Customisation of the rules of a state

Customary laws are considered in case of prevention of use of force which enhances the scope for customizing rules. United Nations Security Council intervene in case of disruption of peace in nation which affects the humanitarian operations.

 The notion of force

The effectiveness of prohibiting the use of force focuses on the term “notion of force”. Basically it refers to the military force of a state. It leads to generation of coercion related with political as well as economical issues in nation. Prohibition related to the use of force mainly focused on capturing each and every form of armed force by each of the individual state[7].

• Maintaining internal relations

The article 2(4) suggests of that the prohibition of law of force is helpful to maintain international relations among various states. Application of military force never takes the lead to insurgent a military fight against the government. Thus, the insurgents are projected by the prohibition of the use of force.

• Developing personal scope

The concerned article of international law that is article 2 sections 4 suggest it that private individuals are not subjected to the members of UN and therefore, they are not applicable for treaty law[8]. The implementation of prohibition of force aids in development of personal relationship among the members of United Nations.

Legal effects 

The prohibition of the use of force is focused to render each and every act of military force as an asset. It is legally accepted that in case of the violation of international law the concerned state is subjected to be the responsible[9]. It is regarded as their critical duty to take actions accordance with customary international law. At the recent era, the prohibition of use of force acts for entailing legal responsibilities along with the criminal responsibility who are directly involved in violation of international law[10].

Case examples

The Corfu channel case, 1949 at 34 and the Nicaragua case 1986 at 202 can be taken into critical consideration for analysing the effectiveness of prohibition of the use of force[11].

Corfu channel case, 1949 at 34[12]

The essential dispute is related to the explosion of mines and the reasons of sufferings of British warships during passing through the Corfu channel in 1946. UK took the lead to seize court by providing an application on 22nd May 1947. Besides, they have accused Albania to allow a third state mine after mine clearing operations. Though the concerned case previously bought by UN but later it was transferred to the higher authority.

Judgements

The first judgement was focused on the question which was raised by Albania. On the contrary the merit case had begun on 9th April 1949. The court has discovered that Albania was responsible for mine explosion under the international law. It has also been found that the mines were laid without the knowledge of Albanian government.

Nicaragua case 1986 at 202

On the date of April 9, 1984 Nicaragua complained to the international court of Justice (ICJ) that US was focused to involve their military force by violating the international law. This case based on military and paramilitary activities which were conducted by Nicaragua from 1981 to 1984. In this case, the court was unable to rely on UN[13]. As a consequence, Nicaragua has developed an important jurisprudence on customary international law.

Judgments

The court was focused to enforce act against the breaching of law which was ultimately helpful to stop intervention in the affairs of other state. Besides, they had decided it that customary international law was not applicable to violate the sovereignty of other states. Lastly the judge had concluded it that Nicaragua has committed atrocities. Moreover, he distinguished that the US mining of Nicaraguan harbours was unlawful for other parties but not for Nicaragua. It was found to be inconsistent in terms of Nicaragua to be subjected for violating the international law.

D- Recast Regulation 1215/2012

This regulation has been adopted by the parliament of Europe along with the council on 12 December, 2012 which has been the replacement of 44/2001 (Brussels I Regulation)[14]. This decision was taken that has been based on the recognition, jurisdiction and the enforcement of the various judgements in the area of commercial as well as civil related matters. The main reason for bringing in action the recast regulation was for the heavily criticising aspects of the Brussels I regulations that have been related to the European Member State. Under the Article 25, the jurisdictional agreement of the Recast Regulation gives information about the parties that if they have agreed about the court of Member State has to take utmost care of the jurisdiction that the jurisdiction will be done by the Court.

Role of international law for regulating the use of force

International law is mainly the “public international law” which focuses on the regulation of relations and activities between nations. It focuses to emphasise on the critical rules and regulations that are implemented by Security Council. This is helpful in terms of developing relationship with the members of UN charter in United Nations[15]. For example, the UN charter is involved to govern the state treatment of individuals as well as a number of juridical persons. The international law covers up a number of areas such as international trade, dissolution of state and many more. Besides, the humanitarian law is included in to the international law which deals with minimisation of armed conflicts[16].

Development of international law for monitoring use of force

The international law is critically involved to monitor the use of force[17]. In this respect, the security council of UN is focused to the enforcement entity which can never be materialised and provide proper resources for performing the military and paramilitary activities. Engagement of international law includes some disputes which can be sometimes resulted into armed conflict between states. Moreover, the prohibition of aggressive force is enhanced by the incorporation of international law (UN charter, Art. 2(4)).

UN charter is mainly involved in serving as a guide to solve various problems that are critically related to international peace and security[18]. In this respect, they are found to imply some progressive development of rules and regulations of international law. It has been observed that the Article 2(4) critically involves disagreements in terms for using the use of force. Effective analysis of article 51 denotes it that the monitoring of use of force by international law critically emphasises on collective security system along with building of peace[19]. According to the article 42 and 51, it has been clear that the council is primarily involved in reaffirmation for maintaining international peace and security.

The security council of UN is involved in establishment of various peacekeeping operations by using the use of force. UN has made collaboration with Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Status of Mission agreement (SOMA) for maintaining the international law with greater emphasis on use of force that is military and paramilitary force[20]. The rule of use of force was subjected to be formulated by force commander and they are called as rules of engagement. These rules are helpful to analyse the limitations of use of force and specifies the circumstances in terms of maintaining combat with external enemies.

The UN charter is engaged in monitoring their use of force for performing a number of activities such as prevention of conflicts, peacekeeping, disarmament, prevention of counter terrorism and so on. UN has established effective collaboration with peace building commission to make effective application of use of force[21]. It is helpful to enforce sustainable peace and development in United Nations. Moreover, the maintenance of international peace and security gets help form the effective monitoring process of multilateral disarmament in terms of efficient monitoring of use of force. The UN charter is involved in monitoring the entire application of use of force to develop the security level along with maintenance of peace in state[22].

Responsibilities of UN council to maintain peace

The UN was subjected to Second World War in 1945. This, in turn, took an essential role to generate an urge for meeting the central mission that is maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, the UN council is critically focused to meet their primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security[23]. In order to fulfil this responsibility, the Security Council is focused to measure for establishing UN peacekeeping operations. Moreover, they are focused to apply the public international law in an appropriate manner that is helpful to restrict the unnecessary use of force. They also restrict the unethical use of armed force to establish peace and security in United Nations. According to the charter it is helpful to overcome a threat in a region. The UN council takes a critical role in expressing its resolutions. Different boundaries such as involvement of conflicts, barriers for peace building are essential to maintain rights in terms of self defence and collective security system.

Right to self defence

It is obvious that there is actual existence is present in terms of self right.  The article 51 of UN charter emphasises on the fact that the charter should focus on inherent impairment of individual rights as well as collective self defence when an armed attack issues against an individual of UN[24]. In a smaller aspect the public international law does not grant a right to fire arms as a sign of self defence. On the contrary, this law critically focuses on the fact that people can use defensive force for the sake of saving their own lives and in some cases of critical environment they have the rights to use deadly force to save the lives of others. It has been considered as critical duty of UN charter to report to the Security Council when lawlessness is created in terms of violating peace and security. The charter can take enough time to decide and enforce appropriate international law for maintaining peace and security. There are two critical controversies on the scope of self defence. As suggested by article 51-

• The inherent right of self defence coexists with customary right[25].
• On the contrary, customary rights have wider scope than the actual part of self defence

This kind of controversy has turned into debate since 9/11. Argue may be created depending on the rights of anticipatory self defence. For example, Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. In this case, Iraqi nuclear reactor was subjected to anticipatory self defence and it was condemned by UNSC and UNGA.

The essential effects of 9/11 on self defence are helpful to enforce the following arguments based on rights to self defence. It has been seen that 9/11 affected the use of self defence against a terrorist attack. On the contrary, US aimed to disrupt Afghanistan as a source of terrorism. Later it was accepted by Security Council of UN. Moreover, the aspect of rights to self defence was considered as pre emptive. However, controversy had been generated whether self defence could be able to prevent further attack. Anticipatory self defence can be subjected to armed attack when it is found that the attack is not imminent[26].

In this respect, the Oil Platform case 2003 can be taken into consideration for successfully analyse the aspect of rights to self defence[27].

Iran bought a complaint against USA saying that their armed forces destroyed the Iranian oil production. This occurred during the armed conflict between Iraq and Iran. Among the two attacks first was occurred in 19 October 1987 and the second attack was occurred on 18 April 1988. In both of these attacks USA argued on the fact that they had acted upon self defence. It had been know those four days before the second attack US warship stuck a mine and damaged a ship. In this respect USA claimed that the mine was laid by Iran whereas Iran denied this fact.

Judgement

Court rejected the objection of USA in December 12 1996. On 6 November 2003 court rejected the appeal of both the states. It was also proved that US did not breach the treaty freedom of commerce provision.

Thus it can be concluded from the argument that right to self defence is temporary until UNSC is involved to take essential steps to maintain international peace and security.

Discussion on collective security system

The collective security system of UN is based on complementary forms of two different structural criteria. The members of the security council of UN rely on maintenance of internal peace and security which is helpful to enforce collective security system in state. The collective security system can be based on political, global as well as regional security[28]. The critical features of collective security system are as mentioned below-

• It is critically focused on assemblage of military force into a strong force of defence.
• It focuses on the overall security of world.
• It essentially includes cumulative power of cooperating individuals.

A critical argument on this particular aspect focuses on the fact that collective security system does not incorporate the strategies to assess humanitarian condition. Critical analysis over the particular criteria emphasises on the fact that collective security system of UN charter can be more efficient and robust if understanding was better in relation to maintain international peace and security. The collective security system includes the ways to stop wars. In this respect, the public international law is focused to reduce the unnecessary use of armed force to ensure collective security system in UN charter.

The success of collective security system is dependent on the legality of decisions an as well as general perception in terms of legitimacy[29]. The article 2, section 4 states it that collective security will only be possible when all of the individuals on UN are focused to refrain their international relations against the territorial integrity. On the contrary, the article 2 sections 4 suggest it that the concerned principle of article 2 sections 4 is not effective to prejudice the involvement of enforcement measures. Thus, proper maintenance of international peace and security is helpful to enforcing collective security system.

The international law includes the aspect of collective security system by assembling military force in excess. The assembly is done by deterring the aggressors from attempting to change the order to world by implementing the collective security system.

Effective implementation of Collective Forces

In accordance to Article 51 in the UN Charter the members of United Nations are provided with inherent right to individual and collective self-defense in case of armed attack which is monitored by the Security Council[30]. The characteristics based which the implementation of this right occurs are related to appropriate response to regular army as well as irregular troops. It also provides collective self defense in case of potential terrorist attack. Although there are certain controversies related with the scope of collective self defense which fails to address the existing customary rights as well as pre-emptive self defense. In accordance with the Article 39 of UN Charter the Security Council must address the issue and qualify the same as the breach of peace or the act of aggression in order to access the collective security force to overcome the situation[31]. After establishment of the act of aggression or breach of peace in that case the state can legitimately acquire the recourse regarding self defense in accordance with the guidelines of the international law.

In the case of Operation Desert Storm the Security Council adhered to resolution of 1441 and 678 which highlights effective withdrawal beyond which members states authorized to use all the necessary means in order to establish peace and security in the nation[32]. In this scenario Iraq refused to comply with the regulations related with resolution 1441 which forced the Security Council to invade the Iraq in order to defeat the active armed forces in order to achieve peace in the nation[33]. The operation desert storm of 1990 was the first instance of effective implementation of collective security in order to establish peace. This incidence addressed a new era where implementation of collective forces which was authorized by Security Council in order to curb the external forces hampering the peace of the nation.

Another humanitarian intervention adopted by the Security Council was during Operation Enduring Freedom in which the resolution of 688 of United Nations Security Council was implemented concerning the situation in Iraq which followed the concept of no flying zones[34]. The arguments provided in favor of the same raised the issues related with humanitarian intervention which also related with the implementation of guidelines and regulations provided by United Nations Security Council. The 9/11 attack also adhered to implementation of resolution  related with 13678 and 1373 which is related with self defense in case of preemptive which will aid in deterring further attacks in future[35]. Another intervention on the basis of humanitarian grounds was observed in case of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo[36]. The intervention was not authorized but the decision was not held condemned by the Security Council.

The Operation Restore Hope in Somalia issued embargo in arms which was implemented by Security Council which urged the need for cease firing. The main aim related with the issue was based on humanitarian intervention. The resolution implemented by the United Nations Security Council was 794, which highlighted the need for protected environment in order to conduct humanitarian operations in order to develop peace environment in the nation[37].

In the year 2011, the NATO’s intervention in accordance with the resolution of 1973 highlights more traditional action related with the collective action adopted by the Security Council[38]. It authorizes to incorporate all the necessary measures that are essential for protecting the civilians and to deter from attacking the populated areas of the nation. The NATO’s intervention was considered as legal and legitimate that aims at restoring peace in nation.

Conclusion

Thus it can be concluded that the humanitarian law focuses on the principles that are helpful to regulate the methods of warfare along with humanitarian protection of civilian populations. The international law if focused to achieve peace as after effect of conflict. This is also beneficial to protect human rights of UN. The public international law of UN charter includes some critical areas such as peacekeeping, reducing crime intensity as well as measurement of counter terrorism. Reducing the intensities of these factors is helpful to maintain international peace and security. On the other hand, UN charter is actively involved in maintaining rights to self defence and enforcing collective security system. Thereby, the article 2 section 4 of international law is given critical importance. In this respect, the involvement of case scenarios related to the use of force are helpful to analyse its effectiveness in terms of maintaining international security.  The international law covers up a number of areas such as international trade, dissolution of state and many more. Thereby from overall assignment, it is clear that effective involvement of armed force is helpful to overcome the political, global as well as regional barriers which are ultimately helpful to enforce collective security system in United Nations.

Reference list

Journals

Backer, Larry Cata. “The Corporate Social Responsibilities of Financial Institutions for the Conduct of their Borrowers.The View from International Law and Standards.” Lewis & Clark L. Rev. [2017] 21 2 881, 890.

Baradaran, Nazanin, and Homayoun Habibi. “Cyber warfare and self-defense from the perspective of international law.” J. Pol. & L. [2017] 10 3 40, 50.

Beaumont, Paul. “Private international law concerning children in the UK after Brexit: comparing Hague Treaty law with EU Regulations.” Child and Family Law Quarterly [2017] 29 3 213, 232.

Bogdan, Michael. “The new EU regulation on online resolution for consumer disputes.” Masaryk UJL & Tech [2015] 9 155.

Burns, Charlotte, Judith Clifton, and Lucia Quaglia.”Explaining policy change in the EU: financial reform after the crisis.” Journal of European Public Policy [2018 ]25 5 (2018  728, 746.

Fitchen, Jonathan. “Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski (eds), European Commentaries on Private International Law: Volume 1 Brussels Ibis Regulation.” [2017]: 138-139.

Green, James A. “The ratione temporis elements of self-defence.” Journal on the Use of Force and International law [2015] 2 1 97-118.

Howard, Lise Morjé, and Anjali Kaushlesh Dayal. “The use of force in UN peacekeeping.. ” International Organization [2018] 72 1 71,103.

Kogias, Eleftherios Kokoris, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, Linus Gasser, and Bryan Ford..”Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing.” In 25th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 16), [2016] 279, 296.

Koh, Harold Hongju. “The War Powers and Humanitarian Intervention.. ” Houston Law Review [2016] 53 4 39,53.

Kreps, Sarah E., and Geoffrey PR Wallace. “International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes” Journal of Peace Research [2016] 53 6 830,844.

Marossi, Ali Z., Marisa R. Bassett, and Multilateralism Unilateralism.. “Economic Sanctions under International Law.”, [2015] 112,115.

Martín de la Rosa, V. and Lázaro, L.M., How women are imagined through conceptual metaphors in United Nations Security Council Resolutions on women, peace and security. 2019.Journal of Gender Studies, 28 no.4, pp.373-386.

Paddeu, Federica I. “Use of Force against Non-state Actors and the Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness of Self-Defence.” Leiden Journal of International Law [2017] 30 1 93,115.

Papisca, Antonio, and Marco Mascia. “Human Rights and Responsibilities of an International Order. ” Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR: [2019] 169-180.

Parekh, Bhikhu. “5 Rethinking Humanitarian. (2016) ” World Orders in the Making: Humanitarian Intervention and Beyond: pp.138-147.

von Bogdandy, Armin, Matthias Goldmann, and Ingo Venzke. “From public international to international public law: Translating world public opinion into international public authority.. ” European Journal of International Law [2017] 28 1 115, 145.

Wettstein, Florian. “Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: A critical assessment” Journal of Human Rights [2015] 14 2 162,182.

 

Book

Bailey, Sydney. [2016]. The UN Security Council and human rights. Berlin: Springer.

Burley, Anne-Marie Slaughter. “International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda.” In The Nature of International Law (2017), pp. 11-46. Abingdon: Routledge,

Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force [2018]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoogvelt, Ankie. “Globalisation and imperialism: Wars and humanitarian intervention. (2018).” In Revitalising communities in a globalising world, pp. 31-56. Abingdon: Routledge,

Jha, Anupam, Ujjwala Sakhalkar, and Brijesh Kumar Singh. “UN Security Council: South Asian Perspective and Challenges Ahead. (2018)” In Shifting Horizons of Public International Law, pp. 15-36. Berlin: Springer.

Osman, M.A.,. The United Nations and peace enforcement: wars, terrorism and democracy. 2018. 12. no.3. Routledge: Abingdon

Sofaer, Abraham D. “International Law and the Use of Force.” In The National Interest on International Law and Order, (2018). pp. 46-60. Abingdon: Routledge,

Von Glahn, Gerhard, and James Larry Taulbee. Law among nations: an introduction to public international law (2017). Abingdon: Routledge.

Weil, Prosper. “Towards relative normativity in international law?.” In Sources of International Law (2017), pp. 123-152. Abingdon: Routledge,

Weiss, Thomas G. Humanitarian intervention. (2016). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Legislation

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act (CJJA) 1991

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act (CJJA) 1991. Section 1 (1)

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, S 2(I)

European Communities Act 1972, section 2 (l)

Recast Regulation 1215/2012

San Sebastian Convention

 

Case Laws

Corfu Channel, United Kingdom v Albania, Judgment, Merits, ICJ GL No 1, [1949] ICJ Rep 4, ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949), 9th April 1949, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated (Appellant) v Brownlie (Respondent)

Gaggioli, Gloria. “Human rights and personal self-defense in international law.” Melb. J. Int’l L. [2017] 18 2 460, 465.

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Merits, Judgment, (1986) ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986), OXIO 88, 27th June 1986, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

Oil Platforms Case (Iran v United States of America)

Websites

Institute of Peace, United States, ‘the real Lessons of Somalia for the Future of Intervention’ <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr950000.pdf> accessed 9 May 2019

 

[1] Osman, M.A.,. The United Nations and peace enforcement: wars, terrorism and democracy. 2018. 12. no.3. Routledge: Abingdon

[2] San Sebastian Convention

[3] Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated (Appellant) v Brownlie (Respondent)

[4] Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act (CJJA) 1991

[5] San Sebastian Convention

[6] Burley, Anne-Marie Slaughter. “International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda.” In The Nature of International Law (2017), pp. 11-46. Abingdon: Routledge,

[7] Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force (2018). Oxford: Oxford University Press

[8] Green, James A. (2015) “The ratione temporis elements of self-defence.” Journal on the Use of Force and International law 2, no. 1: 97-118.

[9] Hoogvelt, Ankie. “Globalisation and imperialism: Wars and humanitarian intervention. (2018).” In Revitalising communities in a globalising world, pp. 31-56. Abingdon: Routledge,

[10] Howard, Lise Morjé, and Anjali Kaushlesh Dayal. “The use of force in UN peacekeeping. (2018). ” International Organization 72, no. 1: 71-103.

[11] Corfu Channel, United Kingdom v Albania, Judgment, Merits, ICJ GL No 1, [1949] ICJ Rep 4, ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949), 9th April 1949, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

[12] Corfu Channel, United Kingdom v Albania, Judgment, Merits, ICJ GL No 1, [1949] ICJ Rep 4, ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949), 9th April 1949, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

 

[13] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v United States, Merits, Judgment, (1986) ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986), OXIO 88, 27th June 1986, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

[14] Recast Regulation 1215/2012

[15] Jha, Anupam, Ujjwala Sakhalkar, and Brijesh Kumar Singh. “UN Security Council: South Asian Perspective and Challenges Ahead. (2018)” In Shifting Horizons of Public International Law, pp. 15-36. Berlin: Springer

[16] Kreps, Sarah E., and Geoffrey PR Wallace. “International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes. (2016). ” Journal of Peace Research 53, no. 6: 830-844.

[17] Koh, Harold Hongju. “The War Powers and Humanitarian Intervention. (2016). ” Houston Law Review 53, no. 4: pp.39-53.

[18] Marossi, Ali Z., Marisa R. Bassett, and Multilateralism Unilateralism. (2015). “Economic Sanctions under International Law.”, pp.112-115.

[19] Paddeu, Federica I. (2017) “Use of Force against Non-state Actors and the Circumstance Precluding Wrongfulness of Self-Defence.” Leiden Journal of International Law 30, no. 1: 93-115.

[20] Papisca, Antonio, and Marco Mascia. “Human Rights and Responsibilities of an International Order. (2019) ” Metaphysics of Human Rights 1948-2018: On the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the UDHR: 169-180.

[21] Parekh, Bhikhu. “5 Rethinking Humanitarian. (2016) ” World Orders in the Making: Humanitarian Intervention and Beyond: pp.138-147.

[22] Sofaer, Abraham D. “International Law and the Use of Force.” In The National Interest on International Law and Order, (2018). pp. 46-60. Abingdon: Routledge,

[23] von Bogdandy, Armin, Matthias Goldmann, and Ingo Venzke. “From public international to international public law: Translating world public opinion into international public authority. (2017). ” European Journal of International Law 28, no. 1: 115-145.

[24] Von Glahn, Gerhard, and James Larry Taulbee. Law among nations: an introduction to public international law (2017). Abingdon: Routledge.

[25] Weil, Prosper. “Towards relative normativity in international law?.” In Sources of International Law (2017), pp. 123-152. Abingdon: Routledge,

[26] Weiss, Thomas G. Humanitarian intervention. (2016). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

[27] Oil Platforms Case (Iran v United States of America)

[28] Wettstein, Florian. “Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: A critical assessment. (2015) ” Journal of Human Rights 14, no. 2: 162-182.

[29] Kogias, Eleftherios Kokoris, Philipp Jovanovic, Nicolas Gailly, Ismail Khoffi, Linus Gasser, and Bryan Ford. (2016).”Enhancing bitcoin security and performance with strong consistency via collective signing.” In 25th {USENIX} Security Symposium ({USENIX} Security 16), pp. 279-296.

 

[30] Institute of Peace, United States, ‘the real Lessons of Somalia for the Future of Intervention’ <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr950000.pdf> accessed 9 May 2019

[31] Osman, M.A.,. The United Nations and peace enforcement: wars, terrorism and democracy. 2018. 12. no.3. Routledge: Abingdon

[32] Institute of Peace, United States, ‘the real Lessons of Somalia for the Future of Intervention’ <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr950000.pdf> accessed 9 May 2019

[33] Hague Treaty law with EU Regulations.” Child and Family Law Quarterly [2017] 29 3 213, 232.

Bogdan, Michael. “The new EU regulation on online resolution for consumer disputes.” Masaryk UJL & Tech [2015] 9 155.

[34] Wettstein, Florian. “Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: A critical assessment” Journal of Human Rights [2015] 14 2 162,182.

[35] Kreps, Sarah E., and Geoffrey PR Wallace. “International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes” Journal of Peace Research [2016] 53 6 830,844.

[36] Martín de la Rosa, V. and Lázaro, L.M., How women are imagined through conceptual metaphors in United Nations Security Council Resolutions on women, peace and security. 2019.Journal of Gender Studies, 28 no.4, pp.373-386

[37] Institute of Peace, United States, ‘the real Lessons of Somalia for the Future of Intervention’ <https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr950000.pdf> accessed 9 May 2019

[38] Osman, M.A.,. The United Nations and peace enforcement: wars, terrorism and democracy. 2018. 12. no.3. Routledge: Abingdon