Use of Force International Law Simplified Lex Animata by Hesham Elrafei
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2021
- Use of Force in International Public Law, explained and simplified in a visual nutshell
By Hesham Elrafei
/ heshamelrafei
At the end of World War I, the League of Nations failed to prevent states, from using military force to resolve their disputes, as It did not prohibit war nor impose any responsibility, on wrongdoing States.
Instead, The League of Nations requested disputing countries, to try and settle their dispute peacefully, and if not, to wait for three months before going to war.
Ten years later, the Treaty of Paris was adopted. Although its wording is stronger than the League Covenant, the Treaty merely ‘condemned recourse to war.
As a result, many countries entered into bilateral nonaggression agreements to protect themselves; however, most of those treaties did not last, as going to war was not prohibited.
At the end of World War II, and to prevent any future atrocities, The UN charter expressly prohibited all threats to use force, as well as the actual use of armed force.
Therefore, the reason behind the use of military force is irrelevant, Since all instances of armed force are prohibited.
In the Corfu Channel case, a British warship entered Albanian waters without approval, to remove mines that blocked international navigation, after been responsible for the destruction of passing British ships.
The UK denied any breach of the Charter, because it meant only to remove the mines , and had no impact on Albania's territorial integrity, or political independence.
The court disagreed with the UK, holding that a violation of Albanian territorial integrity took place, even if the action was temporary, and had limited objectives.
Therefore, Military force is illegal, even if it is not aimed at disrupting other nations' territorial integrity, or political independence.
Similarly, it also means that military actions not authorized by the security council, to restore democracy or to change a political regime, are illegal under the charter.
This is also attested in the Friendly Relations Declaration, adopted by the UN General Assembly, as it prohibits all kinds of external intervention, in other nation's domestic affairs, which is also stipulated in section 7 of Article 2 of the charter.
However, the use of force does not include, The unilateral imposition of political and economic measures or sanctions.
On the other side, the use of armed force is not always prohibited, as states are allowed to use military force, under two conditions:
First, in a selfdefence case, A state can use military force, to defend itself from an armed attack.
And second, the Collective security, which means the use of armed force authorized by the UN security council, against rogue or violent States , or even against non State entities, such as pirates and terrorist organizations.
While The UN is the only international body authorized to use force outside self-defense cases, it still has to depend on states to offer their troops, as it does not have its own military.
===
Use of force
the Nicaragua case,
Oil Platforms,
the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and
Serbia & Montenegro v Belgium (Case Concerning the Legality of Use of Force).
the Caroline case.
(a) the prohibition of force and selfdefence (Arts 2(4) and 51 UN Charter and
(b) collective security and the role of the Security Council (SC) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970. This is one of the most important resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and is known as the Friendly Relations Declaration.
رائع وبالتوفيق دائما يا معالي المستشار الجليل
It's amazing channel of law ever!!! Very thanks.
Thanks for your feedback I'm glad you like it 😊
This is absolutely amazing. Please create more such content. Thank you
Thanks a lot
this was gret! thank you and keep it up!
Glad you liked it!
very useful, thank you :)
Thanks for passing by and for your feedback 🙏
Great content.
Thank you
👍👍👍👍
Thanks 🙏
Animation Looks biased
Thanks for your feedback , it's normal to be biased toward certain ideology
But not to changed your basic ideologies over time like clothes, your country was against Israel for long time for regional and religion wise reasons but now they change their thoughts amazingly, the history and the books of( التربية الوطنية) always condemn them for their aggression towards occupied Palestine and praise themselves with Honor just for doing that as they went to free them not just talk, I lived and raised there but in fact I born their and study their then return to homeland after that, and within just few years all my childhood positive image of this country destroyed.
No need to reply as non of both of us will change his view.
Basic ideologies is a vague term , there is no sacrosanct ideology n every idea or belief is subject to reform
@@lexanimata ideologies based on religion don't change till day of judgement sir, specially in Islam, and here it's not just the religion but also any reasonable person with conscience and heart will think the same, out of affect of the dirty politics and in support of own country's leaders and their selfish and greedy ideologies without filtering and reviewing, whether it right or wrong.
And the odd thoughts that arise nowadays Islam is innocent from it, and here also it's obvious who is the oppressor and the oppressed, it's really obvious who is the real owner of the land and the occupier and who is violating human rights, but nowadays who has the power and money and west support is right whatsoever as so called Israel.
Just after some years there will be no relation between your country, and arabism, Islam, or customs and traditions, like any secular Western country as who change his colours like a lizard, he will never stop until his identity and origin are completely erased.
The dirty politics of dunya will not benefit the blind supporters in Day of judgement in case you believe in it, as our stay in this world is not permanent.
Religions n history are based on human interpretations, that's why you get many views related to the one issue , there is nothing absolute n each view is subject to criticism n arguments
UNHINGED! Yes please dont stop the not so subtle name calling