Essay Outline and Annotated Bibliography
Does Article 51 of the UN Charter violate the customary law of anticipatory self-defence? Where does the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence fit in?
Introduction
The United Nations was created to prevent another world war, and to maintain peace and cooperation in the international system. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, failed to maintain peace after the First World War, due to its inability to prohibit the use of force. Learning for this failure, the UN was bolder by establishing Article 2(4) in the UN Charter. Article 2(4) bans the threat or use of force that violates the political and territorial sovereignty of any state. However, despite this strict law, use of forces is permissible under Article 51, concerning self-defence. An international law that clashes with this notion is the international customary law regarding anticipatory self-defence. According to the Caroline Doctrine, states can defend themselves even if an armed attack has not occurred. Article 51 does violate the customary law of self-defence because it infringes on the rights of states to defend themselves and maintain peace before an escalation.
Points
1. It is the inherent right and obligation of states to protect their territories and citizens. …show more content…
He looks at how the international law of self-defence affects the customary law. Anticipatory self-defence based on the Caroline Doctrine has been used to justify use of force. However, in many of these cases it has been state-to-state conflicts. He also presents the weakness of pre-emptive self-defence on its condition of imminence. The US posits that this criteria should be expanded on to adapt to the new world system. Richter argues that following this would lead to the abuse of the customary law and undermine the purpose of the
Does Article 51 of the UN Charter violate the customary law of anticipatory self-defence? Where does the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence fit in?
Introduction
The United Nations was created to prevent another world war, and to maintain peace and cooperation in the international system. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, failed to maintain peace after the First World War, due to its inability to prohibit the use of force. Learning for this failure, the UN was bolder by establishing Article 2(4) in the UN Charter. Article 2(4) bans the threat or use of force that violates the political and territorial sovereignty of any state. However, despite this strict law, use of forces is permissible under Article 51, concerning self-defence. An international law that clashes with this notion is the international customary law regarding anticipatory self-defence. According to the Caroline Doctrine, states can defend themselves even if an armed attack has not occurred. Article 51 does violate the customary law of self-defence because it infringes on the rights of states to defend themselves and maintain peace before an escalation.
Points
1. It is the inherent right and obligation of states to protect their territories and citizens. …show more content…
He looks at how the international law of self-defence affects the customary law. Anticipatory self-defence based on the Caroline Doctrine has been used to justify use of force. However, in many of these cases it has been state-to-state conflicts. He also presents the weakness of pre-emptive self-defence on its condition of imminence. The US posits that this criteria should be expanded on to adapt to the new world system. Richter argues that following this would lead to the abuse of the customary law and undermine the purpose of the