USE OF FORCE

Essay 1
The matter under consideration requires careful examination and thoughtful deli
beration. When states have formally accepted the UN Charter and its provisions,
including Article 2(4) which prohibits the use of force, there may arise circumst
ances where a state finds it necessary to assert its right to self-defense. This righ
t, recognised in defiance of Article 2(4) and regulated as
per Article 51, allows one state to intervene in another. To
continue, it is worth noting that there existed a historical notion of just war, whe
rein the use of force was deemed permissible for a divine purpose. However, in
1648, the Treaty of Westphalia emerged as a pivotal development, bringing an e
nd to a 30-year conflict between Catholics and Protestants. This treaty marked a
significant milestone in history, as it recognised and affirmed the political autho
rity and territorial integrity of individual states.
In response to the significant loss of life during World War I, the League of Nati
ons was established in 1919 with the aim of prohibiting the use of armed force.
Nevertheless, the extensive devastation caused by World War II further reinforc
ed the rationale for prohibiting warfare. Consequently, the Kellogg-Briand Pact
of 1928, a global treaty designed to renounce war, was enacted, effectively outla
wing the use of armed force. The primary goal of the United Nations, as stated
in Article 1(1) of its Charter, is to uphold international peace and security.
Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits the use of force (UOF) and the threat of
force, stating that all members must abstain from engaging in UOF or
threatening to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other way that goes against the purposes of the UN.
The states' acceptance and recognition of their entitlements is reflected in Articl
e 51, which lays out the guidelines for self-defense in the event that an attack oc
curs and you decide to retaliate.
The United States case of Caroline, referenced in customary IL, demonstrated th
at an act must be necessary, immediate, and overwhelming in order to qualify as
self-defense.
The provisions of this Charter shall not be interpreted in a way that denies or
limits the right of any individual or group to engage in self-defense, as outlined
in Article 51. If a member of the UN Security Council were to face a military
attack, the Council would take action to ensure global safety.
Here, there is a difference of view, with some people insisting that self-defense i
s only legitimate in the event of an armed attack, while others argue that it shoul
d be interpreted broadly to include situations where no such threat exists.
The right to self-defense under customary international law, however, goes well
beyond the charter's explicit provisions. In (Nicaragua v. United States), the ICJ
divulge, that a state has the inherent right to defend itself from an armed attack,
which includes the use of armed bands or groups to carry out acts of armed acti
on that are serious enough to be considered an attack.

Article 51 does not provide clear guidance on the circumstances under which sel
f-defense is permissible.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States was authorised
by the UN Security Council in Resolutions 1368 and 1373t*to exercise its right
to self-defense*.
The phenomenon of states initiating attacks against other states in the absence o
f an actual armed attack, but based on the presence of a perceived threat of arme
d attack, has become more prevalent. This practise has sparked controversy due
to the challenges associated with determining the imminence of an attack and th
e necessity of self-defense, Pre-emptive self-defence is the doctrine that the
earlier you attack, the more justifiable your actions will be.
According to Professor Malcom Shaw, the use of pre-emptive self-defence (SD)
has been on the rise in recent years, as seen in Israel's attack on its neighbours in
1967. Israel took this action based on the belief that neighbouring states were
likely to initiate an attack. Nevertheless, the frequent exercise of a certain action
does not automatically grant it the status of rightness. Additionally,
Preemptive self-defense is not prohibited by the UN charter.
In 1981, Israel carried out a pre-emptive attack on Iraq's OSIRAC nuclear react
or, citing the principle of self-defense as their justification.
Currently, the default security strategy of the United States, under the Bush adm
inistration, is pre-emptive SD…The term 'inherit' is used in Article 51, which
states that the Charter includes customary international law, which permits self-
defence if an attack is imminent.
The United States utilised this policy as a justification for its 2003 invasion of Ir
aq.
Concerned about the lack of clear guidelines, international lawyers in the UK su
bmitted open letters to former prime minister Tony Blair. regarding when and ho
w preemptive self-defense must be exercised.
Acting in self-defense sooner increases the defensibility of your actions. For
example ,
In response to the 1967 war, Israel had the authority to demolish an aeroplane in
Beirut in 1969.

In contrast, Article 51 acknowledges the entitlement to engage in self-defense,

which extends to both individuals and collectives, including entities like NATO.
NATO exerted significant influence in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Conversely, the concept of initiative-taking defense is a fundamental aspect with
in the framework of collective security defense.
(NATO) undertook military interventions in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, while
also providing support to Kuwait during the 1991 conflict commonly referred to
as the "Gulf War." Collective self-
defense is considered disproportionate when numerous states attack one state.
As previously discussed, article 51 permits the concept of self-defense despite t
he fact that the UOF and threats to the UOF are essentially forbidden by Article
2(4). The suit
of (Nicaragua v. United States) demonstrates that the right in question is not onl
y guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, but also has the status of customary
international law. Furthermore, the scope of this right, as established in the Nica
ragua v. United States case, is broader than that outlined in the United Nations C
harter.
We also witnessed, though, how a strong state like the United States used the th
eory of preemptive self-defense to commit unlawful
act in states where their interests corresponded.

USE OF FORCE
Essay 2
The question at hand necessitates a critical examination of the UN charter's
drafting, as it states that the UN has passed no effective laws on the question of
advancements in weaponry, in particular drones. However, this question must be
dealt with considering the 9/11 twin tower incident, and how a powerful state
like the USA is exploiting the lack of transparency in the charter and using
drones despite there being no viable solution passed in the U.N.
We need to see the UOF's general regulations before we can move forward.
Treaty of Westphalia and the preamble of the Charter both tell stories about the
political stability and supremacy of states, and how no other nation are allowed
to interfere in another state's frontiers and sovereignty, and how the idea of just
war declined and the idea of equality was awoken. However, under international
law, all states have the power to use force, which runs counter to the purpose of
IL. The Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928, often called the General Treaty of
Renunciation of War, was the first international agreement to outlaw the use of
force. After the signing of the United Nations Charter, war was formally
declared illegal thanks to articles 1(1), which established the United Nations'
role as guardian of international peace and security, and 2(4), which effectively
outlawed the use of and threat of UOF. It mandates that all members avoid using
or threatening to use UOF against the political or territorial integrity of any state
or in any way that goes against the objective of the UN Charter in their
international interactions. The terminology employed in the charter are quite
broad, and these meanings are left unexplained or, if given, are not fully
articulated, making it evident that threat and the UOF can be forbidden. This
ensures that ambiguity will rule the day. This means that the 1970 Declaration
on Human Rights analysed the UN Charter and provided further explanation of
the charter's condemnation of threat or UOF in a variety of senses, prolonging
the concept to retaliation for acts of self-determination or participation in any
armed band, all of which are prohibited by the UN Charter, which was
established in order to predominate international peace. Article 51 of the UN
Charter makes an exception for UOF when it comes to self-defence. This is
because the right of a state to safeguard itself, against armed attack, is codified
in customary international law, and the definition of self-defence is established
in the Caroline case. In 1998, Al-Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Kenya; in
response, the U.S. attacked Sweden, where al-Qaeda militants were located. On
September 12, 2001, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution
13/68, which dealt with Article 52 of the UN Charter and the right of self-
defence the United States had against Al-Qaeda. We shall go into more detail
about this, as well as about pre-emptive self-defence, in our discussion of
resolution 1337, which reinforced resolution 1368 in respect to the 9/11
incident.
The 9/11 attacks, which resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 people, gave rise to
the modern concept of terrorism. State-sponsored terrorism is a term coined by
former U.S. president George W. Bush. State-sponsoring terrorism is now part
of the United States' national security strategy. The United States has made
fighting terrorism official government policy. Since September 11, the
international community has been working to define terrorism by first analysing
its manifestations. Second, the extent to which it is universally criticized.
After 9/11, however, the United States began utilizing drone attacks in
accordance with the idea of pre-emptive self-defence, as was previously
discussed, and as was approved by the resolutions 1368 and 1373. However,
article 2(4) of the UN charter explicitly forbids UOF. In the instance of
Nicaragua v. USA, the UN Security Council approved this.
However, the international community is always debating whether UOF should
be allowed, with two competing schools of thought: the permissive doctrine and
the restrictive doctrine. The United States, for example, could take the
permissive doctrine view and argue that the UN charter does not alter the
direction regarding prohibition on the UOF, so it can be relied upon in
customary international law. However, in recent years the United States has
committed drone attacks in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan under the pretext of
self-defence. Afghan officials have seen UOF's use of drones, which have
replaced crewed aircraft, in action. Because 530 bombs and missiles were
dropped on Afghanistan in 2015, the question of whether drone attacks are a
breach of article 2(4) is valid, given that the charter did not explicitly prohibit
the use of force to maintain international peace and security. However, since
2004, the United States has used unidentified aircraft weapons to target
thousands of Pakistanis in Northwest Pakistan via drones. Ex-prime minister
Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has consistently called for an end to the airstrikes. The
Peshawar High Court argues that the use of drones constitutes a violation of the
UDHR and a war crime, while Obama argues that the attacks do not violate
international law and that the methods of attack are precise and effective. It can
be argued that a lack of understanding by the UN drafters has prevailed
ambiguity and uncertainty, so the UN should enact effective legislation to
account for such modern weapons. However, by the meaning of threat or UOF,
they do cover any kind of UOF, which would include drones, as the concept of
charter is too broad. If these drones are a breach of the UN charter, then why is
the Security Council doing nothing about it? This is where the concept of
American exceptionalism comes into play, according to which the United States
believes itself to be the only superpower in the world.

Keeping in mind the question in hand, after every 2-3 paragraph relate your
answer and, in the end, write an effective conclusion – a general introduction is
provided in both essays.