International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2017 231

ISSN 2250-3153

The Use of Force in International Relations

Abdulla Mohamed Hamza.

Faculty of Business and Law, “Union - Nikola Tesla” University, Knez Mihailova 33, Belgrade, Serbia.

Abstract- War is at the core of the efforts to submit the use of turned into a legal institution by itself. This paper looks at the
military force in international relations to legal rules. For prohibited and permissible use of force in International
millennia the decision to wage war was not subject to any legal Relations. Developed social awareness has expanded the limits
restrictions. Furthermore, war was regarded as a legitimate (and even led) to the right to resort to war. This indeed has
means of policy, its foremost aim changing territorial boundaries. abolished the use of force or any form of threats in relation
In the early years of the twentieth century, nearly all states among nations, this has become a rule of law in international
agreed on a ban on the use of force with the explicit exception of criminal law-its violation comes with criminal responsibility in
self- defense, thus legally accepting only peaceful changes to the the eyes of the international community. However, there are
status quo. Situations may occur in which the use of force might certain situations in which it is allowed to use force such as for
be believed to be legitimate by moral standards although illegal. self-defense purposes, humanitarian intervention, and preemptive
Thus, bound between the dichotomy of security and justice, the power inter alia.
requirements of legality and legitimacy might not always The term “law of war” refers to both the rules governing the
coincide in international law. resort to force and the rules governing the actual conduct of force
The use of force has been a long standing phenomenon in in International Law (Peter, 1997). Because each of these two
international relations and has been considered to be directly types of rules governs different subject matters, it is reasonable
linked to the sovereignty of states-the limitless power wielded by to deal with them separately. Therefore, this chapter is devoted
states to use all possible means to guard and protect their to deal with the rules governing the resort to force; while the next
interests. However, the longer period that war has been chapter entitled “International Humanitarian Law” is devoted to
associated with sovereignty of state, the more the issue has deal with the rules governing the actual conduct of force. The
turned into a legal institution by itself. This paper aims to outline rules governing the resort to force form a central element within
what are the situations that force could be used under the charter International Law. These rules together with other principles
of UN, and what is the prohibition of the use of force. Developed such as territorial sovereignty, independence and equality of
social awareness has expanded the limits to the right to resort to States provide the framework for the international order
war. This indeed has abolished the use of force or any form of (Malcolm, 2008). While a domestic system prescribes the
threats in relation among nations, this has become a rule of law monopoly on the use of force by a State, through its
in international criminal law-its violation comes with criminal governmental institutions, in order to enable the State to preserve
responsibility in the eyes of the international community. its authority and maintain its control within its territory, the
However, there are certain situations in which it is allowed to use International Law seeks to minimize and regulate the use of force
force such as for self-defense purposes, humanitarian by States in their international relations in order to preserve and
intervention. maintain peace and security in the world community.The
It is well known that the Security Council bears the primary position of International Law towards the use of force by States
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and has not been the same throughout the history. Because of this
security. According to the Charter of the United Nations, the fact, in the following sections we will deal with the use of force,
Security Council determines the existence of any threat to the first, before 1945, the establishment of the United Nations, and
peace, breach of peace or act of aggression, and it decides what second, under the Charter of the United Nation
measures, involving the use of armed force, are to be employed
to restore peace and security.
II. THE RULES RELATED TO THE USE OF FORCE BEFORE
Index Terms- International relations, Use of force, Self-defense, 1945
Prohibition, United Nation, and Security Council. “War” is the apparent manifestation of the use of force by
States. It is a status or condition of armed hostility between
States. It comes into existence either by a formal declaration or
by acts of armed force between States without a formal
I. INTRODUCTION declaration. Early in History, war was resorted to for various

T he use of force has been a long standing phenomenon in

international relations and has been considered to be directly
linked to the sovereignty of states-the limitless power wielded by
reasons and causes without any distinction, and was conducted
without any limitation and control. The distinction between “just
war” and “unjust war” arose as a consequence of the
states to use all possible means to guard and protect their Christianization of the Roman Empire and the abandonment by
interests. However, the longer period that war has been Christians of pacifism. The doctrine of “just war” was founded
associated with sovereignty of state, the more the issue has on the belief that force could be used if it complied with the

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2017 232
ISSN 2250-3153

divine will. Just war was to be employed as the ultimate sanction institution which would oversee the conducts of the States to
for the maintenance of an orderly society. St Augustine defined ensure that aggression could not happen again. The Covenant of
the just war in terms of avenging of injuries suffered where the the League of Nations, although it did not prohibit the resort to
guilty party had refused to make reparation. War was to be war altogether, it introduced a different attitude, than that existed
employed to punish wrongs and restore the peaceful status quo, previously, to the question of war in International Law. The
nothing further. Aggression was unjust. The resort to force Covenant set up procedures designated to restrict the resort to
should be strictly controlled. St Thomas Aquinas in the war to tolerable levels. It declared that members of the League
Thirteenth Century went a further step in the definition of just agreed that they would submit their disputes, which likely to lead
war by declaring that war could be justified provided it was to a rupture, either to arbitration or judicial settlement, or to
waged by sovereign authority, it was accompanied by just cause, inquiry by the Council of the League. The members also agreed
and i.e. the punishment of wrongdoers, and it was supported by that in no case they would resort to war until the elapse of three
the right intentions on the part of the belligerents ( Bailey,1972) months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial
. The teachings of the Christian theologians on distinguishing decisions, or the report by the Council. During the years
between just war and unjust war were eventually adopted by the following the creation of the League of Nations, various efforts
early classical writers on “the law of nations”, such as Allmerica were made to fill the gap in the League system, which is to
Gentile and his successor Hugo Grotius ( Bledsoe, 2005). . transform the partial prohibition of war into total prohibition of
However, all of these writers took a different approach on this war. These efforts resulted in the conclusion of the General
question in the light of the rise of the European nation-states and Treaty for the Renunciation of War in 1928 (known as the
eventually modified the doctrine of just war. The doctrine Kellogg-Briand Pact or Pact of Paris). The parties to this
became linked with the sovereignty of States, and it was multilateral treaty condemned recourse to war for the solution of
approached in the light of wars between Christian States, each international controversies, agreed to renounce war as an
side being convinced of the justice of its cause. The early writers instrument of national policy in their relation with one another,
on the law of nations approached the doctrine of just war from a and agreed to settle all disputes or conflicts only by pacific
purely subjective point of view, admitting the possibility of both means. This trend was adopted by the Charter of the United
sides having a just cause and believing in being in the right even Nations in 1945.
though one of them might have been objectively wrong. Thus,
the doctrine of just war could not be objectively applied to
determine whether or not a war was just, and consequently the III. THE USE OF FORCE UNDER THE CHARTER OF THE
distinction between just war and unjust war never became part of UNITED NATIONS
the law of nations. Eventually, in the Eighteenth Century, the The Charter of the United Nations establishes a fundamental
distinction was virtually abandoned by the law of nations. The distinction between legal and illegal resort to force. By this, it
doctrine of the just war that arose with the increasing power of has, in a way, revived in International Law the old distinction
Christianity declined with the outbreak of the inter-Christian between just and unjust war. Moreover, it goes further than the
religious wars and the establishment of an order of secular position of the classical international law towards the use of
national sovereign States in Europe. In the Nineteenth Century, force. While the classical international law did not place any
war in the practice of the European States was often represented restriction on the right of States to use force and to go to war, the
as a last resort, as a means of dispute settlement. The resort to Charter of the United Nations provides provisions aiming to
war was regarded as an attribute of statehood. War was a legal control the use of force, on one hand prohibiting the use of force,
state of affairs in International Law. It was to be justified if it and on the other hand permitting the use of force in exceptional
was fought for the defense of certain vital interests. Each State cases.
remained the sole judge of its vital interests. Vital interests 3.1. .The Prohibition of the Use of Force:
constituted a source for political justifications and excuses used The preamble of the Charter of the United Nations starts
for propaganda purposes, not a legal criterion of the legality of with the determination of the peoples of the United Nations to
war. There also existed other methods of employing force that save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, and their
fell short of war, such as reprisals and blockades (Brownlie, willingness to practice tolerance and live together in peace with
2012). The international jurists of the Nineteenth Century one another as good neighbors, and not to use armed force except
abandoned emphases on the legality of war (jus ad bellum), and in the common interest. To this end Article 2(4) of the Charter
concentrated on the legality of the conducts of war (Bledsoe , provides:All members shall refrain in their international relations
2005). Therefore during this century, a series of regulatory from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
conditions and limitations on the conducts of war, or of force in political independence of any state, or in any other manner
general, were recognized under International Law in order to inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. This article
minimize the resort to war, or at least to restrict its application. formulates the principle of the prohibition of the use of force in
There also existed legal consequences resulting from the exercise International Law, by imposing upon the States members of the
of the right to resort to war. The unprecedentedsuffering of the United Nations the basic obligation to refrain from the threat or
First World War caused a revolutionary change in the attitudes use of force in their international relations. The provision of this
towards (Malanczuk ,1997 ).The doctrine of just war was article, which marks the general acceptance of the prohibition of
revived after this war. The creation of the League of Nations in the use of force in international relations, is of universal validity.
1919 constituted an effort by the world community to rebuild The principle of prohibition of the use of force bounds the States
international affairs upon the basis of a general international members of the United Nations and the United Nations itself, as

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2017 233
ISSN 2250-3153

well as, the few States which are not members of this in a case of exercising the right of individual or collective self-
international organization since it is a principle of customary defense under Article 51. The second exception is the use of
international law. Article 2(4) mentions the use of force not the force by authorization of the Security Council of the United
resort to war; by this, it intends to include in the prohibition all Nations under Chapter VII.The 1950 General Assembly “Uniting
sorts of hostilities, short of war, in which States may be engaged. for Peace” Resolution formulates a third exception to the
It prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat of force. principle of the prohibition of the use of force, which is the use
The prohibition of the threat or use of force in international of force upon a recommendation of the General Assembly. A
relations against the territorial integrity or political independence fourth exception is formulated by the 1974 General Assembly
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Resolution on “the Definition of Aggression” which entitles the
Purposes of the United Nations, as stated in Article 2(4), is people forcibly deprived of the right to self-determination, or
reinforced by other provisions of the Charter, particularly under colonial domination or alien subjugation, to struggle to
paragraph 3 of the same article. Article 2(3) imposes upon States achieve their objectives in self-determination and independence
the obligation to “settle their international disputes by peaceful (U.N. Doc. 1950). ).
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered.” Furthermore, this prohibition is
elaborated as a principle of International Law in the 1970 V. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE
General Assembly “Declaration on Principles of International International law recognizes a right of self-defense, as the
Law Concerning Friendly relations and Co-Operation among International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua
States in According with the Charter of the United Nations Case on the use of force. Some commentators believe that the
(U.N. Doc. 1970). The 1970 Declaration on Principles of effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed
International Law provides that the threat or use of force attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defense are banned by
constitutes a violation of International Law and the Charter of the article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51
United Nations and should not be employed as a means of acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down
settling international issues. It declares that a war of aggression procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does
constitutes a crime against peace, for which there is occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-
responsibility under International Law. It lists systematically the defense in situations when an armed attack has not actually
obligations of States in this regard. Every State has to refrain occurred is still permitted. It is also to be noted that not every act
from propaganda for wars of aggression. It has to refrain from of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to
the threat or use of force to violate the existing international clarify, in the Nicaragua case, what level of force is necessary to
boundaries of another State, or the international lines of qualify as an armed attack. As a fundamental "Principle of the
demarcation. It has to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the Organization" and a general principle of international law,
use of force. It has to refrain from any forcible action which Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter requires that states refrain from
deprives peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and the use of force, and states that all Members shall refrain in their
independence. It has to refrain from organizing, instigating, international relations from the threat or use of force against the
assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in territorial integrity and political independence of any state, or in
another state, or acquiescing in organized activities within its any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United
territory directedtowards the commission of such acts. The Nations (U.N. charter art. 2). However, one must consider the
Declaration provides that the territory of a State shall not be the prohibition of the use of force under the U.N. Charter in light of
object of military occupation or acquisition by another State other relevant provisions. In Article 42, the U.N. Charter states
resulting from the threat or use of force, and that such territorial that the "Security Council may take military enforcement
acquisition shall not be recognized as legal. The Declaration measures in conformity with Chapter VII (U.N. charter art 42).
obliges all States to comply in good faith with their obligations Article 51 envisages a further lawful use of force in the event of
under the generally recognized principles and rules of an armed attack: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
International Law with respect to the maintenance of inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed
international peace and security, and to make the United Nations attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the
security system based upon the Charter more effective. The Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain
Declaration, however, provides that its provisions shall not international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in
construed as enlarging or diminishing in any way the scope of the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately
the provisions of the Charter concerning cases in which the use reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect
of force is lawful. By this provision, the Declaration reaffirms the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the
the exceptions to the principle of the prohibition provided for in present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
the Charter of the United Nations. necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security (U.N. charter art. 51). The question in relation to
anticipatory self-defense is, therefore, whether Article 51 of the
IV. THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF U.N. Charter has become the only source of a state's right of self-
FORCE defense in international law (and, therefore, one is limited to
The Charter of the United Nations formulates two considering whether Article 51 permits anticipatory self-
exceptions to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force defense), or whether Article 51 only imposes certain conditions
in international relations. The first exception is the use of force for the application of a pre-existing, inherent right of self-defense

www.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 3, March 2017 234
ISSN 2250-3153

(where one would consider, in addition to Article 51, customary

international law). For the reasons that follow, this article
maintains that Article 51 "only highlights one form of self- VIII. CONCLUSION
defense (namely in response to an armed attack)," and that the The exclusive right of using force is situated only in the UN
right of self-defense is a pre-existing, inherent right recognized in Security Council. Nothing impairs the inherent right of
customary international law (Yoram, 2001). individual and collective self-defense in case of committed
armed attack against any member state of the UN until the
Security Council takes the necessary measures for restoring
VI. THE USE OF FORCE BY AUTHORIZATION OF THE international peace and security. The use of force by regional
SECURITY COUNCIL organizations like NATO, OSCE, etc. must be mandated by the
The second exception to the prohibition of the use of force UN Security Council. If we agree that the NATO Treaty does
in international relations is formulated in Article 42 of Chapter have a hard legal core which evens the most dynamic and
VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 42 provides innovative re-interpretation cannot erode, it is NATO’s
that the Security Council may take such coercive military action subordination to the principles of the UN Charter.
by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or The right of self-defense, inherent in every state, includes
restore international peace and security. Such action may include logically the right of anticipatory self-defense, ensuring that a
demonstrations, blockades, and other operations by air, sea, or defender has sufficient flexibility to take defensive hostile
land forces of Members of the United Nations. This means that measures without waiting for the attack. A state that would
the Security Council has the power to order or authorize the use renounce the right of anticipatory self-defense could be
of force or, in traditional terminology, the resort to war. indefensible in a world without a central world body that could
However, the Council is required to fellow the procedures prevent powerful aggressor states from acting at will. The
provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. elasticity of the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense should
however not be stretched past logic and into fantasy In the
absence of a clear immediate threat, explaining one state's
VII. THE USE OF FORCE UPON A RECOMMENDATION OF THE aggression or violation of another state's territorial sovereignty
GENERAL ASSEMBLY can lead to some unsubstantial claims.
The “Uniting for Peace” Resolution, adopted by the General
Assembly on November 3, 1950, grants the General Assembly of
the United Nations the power to act in place of the Security REFERENCES
Council if the latter fails to discharge its primary responsibility in [1] Baileys.j “Prohibitions and Restraints in war “ oxford handbook,(1972) ,
pp. 9.
maintaining international peace and security. Under this
[2] Bledsoe & Boczek)”Dictionary of international law” book, , (2005,p p. 336.
resolution, the General Assembly may do by recommendations Peter, M,.” Modern introduction to international law” London and New
anything that the Security Council can do by decisions under York , handbook,(1997), pp 306
Chapter VII. The Assembly can make appropriate [3] Brownlie, I “international law and use of force by state” oxford, book,.
recommendations to members for collective measures, including (2012), pp 697
the use of armed force, if the Council in any case where there [4] Malcolom, S.”international law “ Cambridge handbook, (2008), pp 1013.
appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of Bledsoe & Boczek. (2005) p. 336. Malanczuk, P. (1997) p. 308.UN. Doc.
A/8028, at 121 (1970).UN. Doc. A/1775, at 10 (1950).
aggression fails to exercise its responsibility, because of the lack
[5] UN. CHARTER art. 2, para. 4UN. CHARTER art. 42.UN. CHARTER art.
of unanimity of its permanent members (UN G.A, RES, 1950 ). 51.Yoram, D “WAR, AGGRESSION AND SELF-
7.1. The Use of Force by Peoples for Self Determination and DEFENCE” (Cambridge University. (2001) , pp167.UN G
Independence: A. RES on November 3, (1950).
Article 7 of the 1974 General Assembly Resolution on “the
Definition of Aggression” grants the peoples forcibly deprived of
their right of self-determination, freedom and independence, AUTHORS
particularly peoples under colonial and racist regime or other First Author – Abdulla Mohamed Hamza. Faculty of Business
forms of alien domination, the right to struggle for the purpose of and Law, “Union - Nikola Tesla” University, Knez Mihailova 33,
achieving their self-determination, freedom and independence. Belgrade, Serbia. e-mail : [email protected], tel.
This implies that those peoples can use armed force in their 00381612339458.
struggle, and this is a forth exception to the principle of
prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

www.ijsrp.org