public international law: principles | Quizlet

subjects of international law

- definition: an entity that has international legal personality, meaning that they are the bearer of rights and/or obligations

- vagueness v specificity: a list of who the subjects are offers certainty, but can also become inflexible and difficult to adapt

- subjects are made effective through recourse to international procedures by having access to international courts and tribunals

- main subjects: states and international organisations

- sui generis: individuals, peoples, armed opposition groups

- debatable subjects: nature, NGOs, multinational corporations

state

- Internal and external dimensions (Jean Bodin, The Six Books of the Republic): claim of authority over the individuals within that territory (internal) + denial of higher authority meaning the State is not subject to any outside authority; it has independence and sovereignty (external)

- sovereignty comes from art.2(1) UN charter

- 'par in parem non habet imperium'

recognition of states

1) constitutive theory

- Recognition is constitutive for statehood: if a State recognises another State, that recognition makes it effectively a State

- Issue: incoherent results

- The same State can both be a State and also not be a State, depending on which States recognise it

2) declaratory theory

- Recognition by another State does not make the statehood effective

- It is simply a declaration that a State accepts an entity as a State and is willing to enter into relations with it

- Recognising State considers that the Art.1 Montevideo Convention criteria are fulfilled

- Recognition itself is not what makes/breaks statehood

- Collective non-recognition: claimed duty not to recognise an entity when there are strong reservations as to the legality or morality of their actions (Hernandez)

new states

- New State emerging through a dissolved State is legitimised through the consent of the dissolved State

- In other situations, you use historical consolidation to show recognition and/or admission to international organisations

kosovo as an emerging state

2008: declaration of independence (legitimised later by ICJ advisory opinion in 2010)

2009: admission to IMF and World Bank

2015: narrow defeat to UNESCO (but voting behaviours matter - 92 in favour)

palestine as an emerging state

2011: admission to UNESCO

2012: GA non-member observer State status

Ratified IHL and human rights treaties

2015: ratification Rome Statute ICC

South Africa vs Israel case with Palestine intervening

principal organs of the UN

General Assembly

Security Council

Economic and Social Council

Secretariat (Admin/Executive organ)

International Court of Justice

Trusteeship Council

subsidiary organs of the UN

- International Law Commission: tasked with identifying international law (binding) and leading it to its progressive development (non-binding)

- Includes specialised bodies

specialised bodies at the UN

- IO's brought into relationship with the UN through the Economic and Social Council through Art.57(2) and 63(1) UN Charter

- Established by intergovernmental agreement and have wide international responsibilities

- Specialised bodies can go to the ICJ for advisory opinions which are within their competences (WHO Nuclear Weapons)

political organs of the UN

- General Assembly + Security Council

- Plenary organs: General Assembly is a plenary organ because every State has a vote

- Limited (executive) organs: Security Council is limited because it has limited membership (5 permanent, 10 rotational)

judicial organs and expert bodies at the UN

- International Court of Justice

- International Tribunals (ICTY)

Expert bodies:

- International Law Commission

- Human Rights Committee

- Committee against Torture

Committees produce non-binding but very important General Comments where they comment on the instrument that they are responsible for (e.g HR Committee is responsible for the ICCPR Treaty)

applicable law, responsabilities, and immunities to IOs

- applicable law: stems from treaties and customary international law + agreements between international organisations and States

- responsabilities: CIL

- immunities:

- Problematic because there is only an administrative tribunal for UN employees

- Shared responsibility project: in order to avoid impunity for IO's, individuals can also target states that were involved in cases

- Example: Cholera outbreak in Haiti

principle of speciality (competences and powers of IOs)

- Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons (WHO)

- Asked about the legality of nuclear weapons, not about its health effects

- Legality of nuclear weapons falls outside of the competence of the WHO

- Para.25: 'International organisations... are invested by the States which create them with powers, the limits of which are a function of the common interests whose promotion those States entrust to them'

principle of attribution of powers (competences and powers of IOs)

- Express powers: 'normally the subject of an express statement in their constituent instruments' (para.25, WHO Nuclear Weapons opinion)

- Implied powers: 'though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication' (Reparation opinion)

- References to this principle in para.25 in WHO Nuclear Weapons but only to subsidiary powers while Reparations case does not state anything in regards to the type of powers

binding decisions of IOs

security council: art.25 UN Charter allows binding decisions

- Non-binding decisions: chapter VI

- binding decisions: chapter VII (but not every, have to look at language of the resolution)

general assembly:

- External sphere: non-binding, indicates GA's relationship with other States which are typically non-binding resolutions but still important (especially in regards to voting behaviours) because they can be used for CIL

- Internal sphere: binding, GA's relationship with the internal functions of the United Nations (example: budget)

sources of law not included in art.38 ICJ

- unilateral declarations/statements (nuclear tests case)

- decisions of international organisations

CIL

1) opinio juris

- belief that something is law before it is law?

- Double counting

- Bin Cheng: (individual, general, consent-based, etc.)

2) state practice

- Widespread, representative, consistent, and virtually uniform

- specially affected states

- Decisions of international organisations are relevant

- Courts/tribunals not taken according to ILC but evidence is

- Silence is decided on an ad hoc basis (case-by-case) also depending on whether they are especially affected

persistent objector in CIL

- CIL binds all States unless you have persistently objected before the rule emerged, during its formation stage

- No possibility for a persistent objector in jus cogens

- CIL automatically applies to new states for the purpose of stability (see Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute)

general principles

- draft conclusion 11: no hierarchical relationship between general principles of law and treaties/CIL, conflicts are treated by applying generally accepted techniques of interpretation

- general principles as self standing sources of obligation? nicaragua v honduras says NO, ILC says YES in DC 10

general principles draft conclusions (DC)

DC 3: Categories of general principles of law comprise those (a) derived from national legal systems or (b) that may be formed within the international legal system

DC 4: In order to identify 3(a) it is necessary to ascertain (a) the existence of a principle common to the various legal systems of the world and (b) its transposition to the international legal system (the principle can function in international law)

DC 5: In order to determine 4(a), a comparative analysis has to be made that is wide and representative of various legal systems from different regions of the world (issue: similar to CIL)

DC 6: In order to determine 4(b) the principle must be compatible with the international system

DC 7: In order to identify 3(b) it is necessary that the community of nations has recognised the principle as intrinsic to the international legal system

subsidiary sources: judicial decisions

- Cannot be used as state practice, but it can be used to help with the interpretation or application of treaties

- Subject to Art.59 ICJ Statute: 'The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case'

- No stare decisis (no system of precedent)

- Jurisprudence is relevant as ICJ often refers back to its own jurisprudence, the PCIJ, or other tribunals (e.g ICJ Genocide case 2007)

subsidiary sources: teachings of the most highly qualified publicists

- Doctrine: teachings of authors of international law who have thoroughness and quality reasoning

- ILC? An expert body, so not belonging to teachings of the most highly qualified publicists (but still extremely important)

soft law

- Non-binding, includes GA resolutions, recommendations, documents of experts or scholars

Legal effects:

- Used in the interpretation of treaties

- May generate state practice (CIL)

- GA declarations may contribute to opinio juris of States

- General principles of law

- Incorporation into national law

non-retroactivity of VCLT

- The VCLT only applies to treaties made after 1980 (entry into force), meaning that the applicable law to treaties before 1980 is CIL

- Also look at specifically when it has entered into force for that particular state

phases in life of a treaty

1) Negotiations, initialling, signature

2) States give consent to be bound (signature, ratification, and accession) - (11-15 VCLT)

- Usually signing does not mean you are bound, but Art.18 VCLT applies

- Ratification is binding through the instrument of ratification

3)Entry into force (Art.24 VCLT)

classic interpretational methods of law

- Lex posterior (later law over earlier)

- Lex specialis (special law over general)

- Lex superior (jus cogens, Art.53 VCLT)

domestic law in treaties

- Art.27 VCLT: cannot invoke domestic law to deviate from international obligations BUT without prejudice to Art.46

- Art.46 VCLT: unless the violation was manifest (obvious) and concerned a rule of its law of fundamental importance (but this provision is interpreted strictly by the ICJ)

treaty interpretation

- Textual/grammatical interpretation: Looking at the literal definition of the words in the text

- Teleological interpretation: Interpreting the text in light of its meaning and purpose

- Intentions' approach: Drafter's intention, but also allows for the law to evolve if the drafter wished it to be so (which they often do)

- evolutive approach: based on the intention of the parties, object and purpose of the treaty, text (generic terms), and duration

- also articles 31-32 VCLT + principle of effectiveness

grounds for suspension/termination of treaties (non-canonical)

- Emergence of a new rule of jus cogens

- Impossibility of performance

- Material breach: fundamental piece of treaty

- Fundamental change of circumstances, rebus sic stantibus: circumstances must have existed as an essential basis for the treaty, the change must have been fundamental + unforseen, high threshold

reservations for a treaty

- Cannot retroactively make a reservation 10 years later after ratifying the treaty

- Reservations can be withdrawn at any point

- art.19 VCLT on impermissble reservations

reservations for a treaty: PROCESS (art.20-21 VCLT)

Art.20(4)(b): An objection to a reservation does not stop the treaty from entering into force unless otherwise made clear from the intention of the objecting state

Art.20(4)(c): In order for the reservation to enter into force, at least 1 other state has to sign it

Art.20(5): If the other state does not say anything for 12 months it is considered that they accepted the reservation

Art.21(1): If State A accepts State B's reservation, the modified treaty text applies between State A and B (for every other State the normal treaty applies, 21(2))

Art.21(3) objection to a reservation:

A State objects to a reservation but does not object to the treaty entering into force, then the parts of the treaty which both States have agreed upon applies (to them), where they disagree does not apply at all (to them)

UNCLOS dispute settlement

- A State is allowed to choose which dispute settlement they want (consent as a basis)

- If States have selected different methods of dispute settlements, they go to a special tribunal

ways of obtaining territorial sovereignty (law of the sea, as land dominates sea)

Discovery: inchoate title and not accepted as it does not actually demonstrate that you have power over land

Occupation: terra nullius

Prescription: abandonment of land (terra derelicta)

Conquest: acquisition by war/armed force, not accepted anymore

Cession: transfer of territory by agreement (leasing the land does not transfer sovereignty however)

Avulsion/accretion: rivers changing course where land is accumulated or lost

Seasteading: sovereignty over artificial islands or constructions, however it does not create new maritime zones (UNCLOS)

delimitation

- Meaning the drawing of baselines between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

- Territorial sea is decided by the line of equidistance (basically equal distance between the two States)

- If ineffective (e.g the states are next to each other) a vector line is drawn (angle is calculated and split down the middle)

- Continental Shelf and EEZ is decided by dispute settlement virtue of Art.74 + 83 UNCLOS

maritime zones

- territorial sea: right of innocent passage, transit passage

- contiguous zone: functional jurisdiction

- EEZ: needs to be claimed by state, includes waters, subsoil and seabed

- continental shelf: automatically belongs to state, but doesn't include waters

- high seas/the area: free reign except for flag ship jurisdiction (but exceptions in art.110 UNCLOS) + right of hot pursuit

what are the three branches of jurisdiction

Prescriptive: legislative ability to create laws that regulate activities

Enforcement: executive ability to enforce the law

Adjudicative: judicial bodies hear and determine individual cases

principles of criminal jurisdiction (the further you go, the weaker they are)

- territorial jurisdiction: subjective/objective component + effects doctrine

- active nationality

- flag ship

- passive personality

- protectivity principle

- universality principle

treaty crimes

- states have obligation to extradite or prosecute individuals for treaty crimes (goal is to prevent impunity)

- There is a requirement that the individual is present on the territory of the state exercising jurisdiction

- No trial in absentia

- Offers quasi-universal jurisdiction as parties to the treaty have the ability to exercise jurisdiction

- Also required to establish jurisdiction if the offender is present on the territory and State party to the treaty does not extradite him

state immunity

- convention on jurisdictional immunities which is not in force

- acte jure imperii: acts of the state, includes state immunity

- acte jure gestionis: commercial acts, no immunity (nature + purpose)

- Immunity of bank accounts of embassies depends on what the money is being used for

- Immunity of buildings being claimed as premises of a diplomatic mission but demonstrate that it is actually being used for a diplomatic mission

excpetions to state immunity

- waiver by the state

- persona non grata (host state asks for state to collect their national)

- territorial tort exception in peacetime in art.12 UN Convention

- not a clear exception in cases of jus cogens

immunities of individuals: ratione personae

- covers both personal and official acts (and prior acts), and applies to (ICJ Arrest Warrant): Serving Heads of State, Other High Ranking Governmental Figures, Heads of Government, Minister of Foreign Affairs

- Non-exhaustive list: in some cases the Defense Minister and the Minister of Commerce have been given immunity

immunities of individuals: ratione materiae

- State officials acting as such (basically other State officials not mentioned above)

- FORMER heads of State and other governmental figures (after their time they only have immunity for acts they committed while in office under official capacity)

- Debate at ILC which led to Draft Article 7: Should an act of one of the core crimes constitute an exception to immunity ratione materiae?

diplomatic immunities

- Does not only apply to diplomats, as it is up to the discretion of the State to choose who they want to offer diplomatic immunity to

- When diplomat → immunity ratione personae

- Not diplomat anymore → immunity ratione materiae

- covered by the VCDR (in force)

UN treaty bodies (IHRL)

- Independent committees made of legal experts

- Various ways in which they can protect HR:

- State reports (Art.40 ICCPR)

- Complaints by individuals or states (usually via state consent to the optional protocol)

- Ad-hoc investigations (also optional, e.g Art.20 CAT)

Issue: outcomes of these procedures are usually recommendations, meaning they are not legally binding (unlike regional options)

UN Charter based bodies (IHRL)

- Not based on specific treaties, but on Art.55-56 of UN Charter

- UN Human Rights Council

- Political body with state representatives

- Monitors human rights around the world through a procedure called the Universal Periodic Review

- It covers all human rights, irrespective of whether the country has ratified the treaty or not

- Special procedures: independent rapporteur that specifies in one particular field (name and shame)

obligations and gen rights:

- obligations: negative + positive

- sometimes both (general commment 31)

- Civil and political (1st Gen)

- Economic, social and cultural (2nd Gen)

- Solidarity or collective rights (3rd Gen)

limits to HR

- reservations

- withdrawal from HR treaties

- derogations in times of national emergencies (art.4 ICCPR, but ICESCR has none)

- legitimate limitations in specific provisions: provided by law, in pursuit of certain interests, necessary (proportionality)

extraterritorial application of HR

- Territory: Obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil HR always applies to the State's own territory

- ICCPR Article 2(1) - within the territory of the state AND subject to its jurisdiction (general comment 31 states even if not in state)

- ECHR art.1: 'everyone within their jurisdiction'

right to life (art.6 ICCPR)

- In connection with the denial of the applicability of IHRL (International Human Rights Law) while combating terrorism or armed conflict

- Technically a non-derogable right (via Art.4 ICCPR) but what this really means is a prohibition on arbitrariness and intentional deprivation of life

targeted killings of alleged terrorists

- Is IHRL applicable?

- Argument of applicability in times of war, in which case IHL would apply (lex specialis)

- ICJ Nuclear Weapons (para.25): HR must be set aside

- ICJ Wall Opinion (para.106): depends on the context, can be both

- General Comment 31 (para.11): both spheres of law are complementary, not mutually exclusive

- Requirement of no 'arbitrariness' still stands

targeted killings of alleged terrorists IHRL vs IHL

Under IHRL:

- Requires a legal basis

- Must be necessary and proportional

- With precaution

- Duty to investigate (Al-Skeini v UK, para.161-177)

Under IHL:

- Is the operation part of an 'armed conflict'?

- Distinction between combatant vs civilian as targeted attacks are only allowed against combatants, fighters, or civilians directly participating in hostilities

- Is individual is a military target

- Exception: surrendering

- The attack must afford a military advantage (military necessity) and be proportional in terms of collateral damage

ARSIWA

- not a treaty but considered codification of CIL

- contains lex specialis rule

- conditions are:

1) act (act + omission)

2) violation (of intl. law)

3) attribution (art.4-11 ARSIWA)

circumstances precluding wrongfulness for IWA

- consent (good faith)

- self-defence

- countermeasures

- force majure (irresistible force or unforseen event, beyond control of the state, not logically foreseeable)

- distress hainan island incident (spy plane)

- state of necessity: can be future perils as long as there is evidence

applicable sources to IAC

- geneva convention

- additional protocol I

- common art.2 geneva convention

- art.42 hague convention + art.2 geneva convention + protocol I also applies in situations of occupation

applicable sources to NIAC

- common art.3 to geneva convention

- additional protocol II

- note: high threshold

status of persons within IAC: combatants

- Have the right to participate in hostilities (Art.43(2) Protocol I)

- 'Enjoy' Prisoner of War (POW) status (Art.44(1) Protocol I)

- Other militias and volunteer groups qualify if they fulfill the following elements: commanded by a person, fixed distinctive sign, carrying arms, and respect IHL

- If conditions are violated by one or two individuals then it does not violate the categorising of the whole group

- Levée en masse: inhabitants of a non occupied territory who on approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist

- other situations are listed under art.4 geneva convention

civilians in IAC

- Negative definition: anyone who is not a combatant is a civilian, in cases of confusion it is assumed they are a civilian (Art.50 Protocol I)

Civilians directly participating in hostilities (DPIH)

- If caught: no protected status except Common Art.3 GC

- 3 cumulative requirements for DPIH under rec V: threshold of harm, certain degree of severity, direct causation, belligerence nexus (action needs to lean to the support of one side)

- Intent is usually not relevant unless in exceptional circumstances such as unawareness or involuntariness (physical coercion)

- Continuous Combatant Function: an individual is considered a DPIH as long as they are a member of a group participating in hostilities (solves the revolving door problem)

- However the individual can disassociate from the group through disengagement acts (do not have to be openly declared but has to be demonstrated through acts)

basic principles of IHL

- Legitimate Objective (St. Petersburg Declaration)

- Military Necessity

- Principle of Humanity (Counterbalance for military necessity and weapons regulation)

- Principle of Distinction (Art.44(3) and 48 of Protocol I)

basic rules of IHL

- Legitimate military objectives: Targeting (nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action)

- Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks (prohibited weapons)

- Proportionality (but always determined based on the information available at the time)

prohibited weapons

- violate cardinal principles of IHL such as indiscriminate weapons and weapons causing unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury

- prohibition on poisoned or hidden weapons (laws of manu)

- events: St Petersburg Declaration, The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets, Geneva Gas Protocol

ICC history

- WWI (versailles)

- WWII (nuremberg and tokyo)

- 1990s: yugoslavia and rwanda

- ICC in 1998

crime of aggression special jurisdiction

- art.15bis(5) states that countries which have not ratified ICC or kampala amendments cannot pursue crime of aggression

- does not matter if you have made a declaration under 12(3)

ICC exercise of jurisdiction

1) Art.13 Rome Statute

- Reference by a State party

- Reference by Security Council (Chapter VII Charter)

- investigation initiated by Prosecutor (Proprio motu), but subject to authorisation by a Pre-Trial Chamber

2) Art.12 Rome Statute: Preconditions

- Crime must have been committed on the territory of the State party OR person charged with committing the crime must have the nationality of a State party (flag ship principle also applies

- Conditions not required when referral is made by the SC

ICC principle of complementarity

- If domestic courts step in, then international courts step down

- Issue: Domestic court might be unwilling or unable to prosecute the person, and if this is proven then international courts have the ability to step in

ICC individual responsibility

- Persons that can be brought before the court:

1) Only natural persons, no legal persons (Art.25 Rome Statute)

2) No minors (Art.26 Rome Statute)

3) Commission and accessory acts also count (Art.25 Rome Statue)

4) Command responsibility and superior responsibility

- Art.28 Rome Statute: includes military commanders, persons effectively acting as a military commander, and other superiors such as political authorities

ICC superior orders and prescriptions of law

- defense used at the Nuremberg Trials was that individuals were following superior orders of the State

- 'International law imposes duties and obligations on individuals as well as states' (Nuremberg Tribunal)

- Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State

- Codified in Art.33 of the Rome Statute with certain exceptions

+ States cannot invoke internal law to justify non-performance of international obligations (Art.27 VCLT and Art.3 ARSIWA)

ICC no crime without law and no punishment without law

- Art.11 Rome Statute: Court may only exercise jurisdiction once the treaty enters into force (2002) or in respect to when the treaty enters into force for that particular State

- Unless State makes a declaration under Art.12(3) Rome Statute

Jurisdiction is accepted to certain crimes which happened before the State becomes party to the treaty (e.g Ukraine, Palestine, Armania) - faster way to give courts jurisdiction

ICC irrelevance of official capacity

- Art.27(1) Rome Statute

- No exemption from criminal responsibility

- No ground for reduction of sentence

ICC immunities

- Art.27(2) Rome Statute: Immunities do not prevent the ICC from exercising its jurisdiction

- Existing CIL supports that you cannot invoke immunities before an international criminal court

- Counter by Art.98 Rome Statute: al bashir controversy

peaceful settlement of disputes (general observations)

- Conduct obligation, meaning States have an obligation to try and seek peace, not actually make it

- Consent is a key element otherwise there is silence or denial

- Result of a diplomatic dispute settlement is soft law it does not have a legal obligation on the States party

- Whatever is produced from legal dispute settlementis binding on the States party

methods of dispute settlement

diplomatic: negotiations, fact-finding, enquiry, good offices, mediation, and conciliation

legal: arbitration or judicial settlement

arbitration as a means of dispute settlement

- States agree to set up a court specifically for this dispute which issues a binding decisions

1) Disadvantages:

- Expensive (paying judges, court, legal teams, etc.)

- Arbitrators that they choose are not that familiar with international law as they may be domestic judges

2) Advantages:

- Time is reduced because States agree on procedural methods

- Each party can pick their own arbitrators (one is picked by each side, and both sides pick the third one)

- Gives States a lot of power on how things can be handled

contentious jurisdiction of the ICJ

- refers to settlement of disputes between States which typically leads to a binding decision

- how to access: state party automatically has access to court via art.34-35 ICJ statute, state NOT party can bring case via art.35(1) but is subject to certain conditions

how can states consent to jurisdiction of the ICJ? art.36

- compromis/special agreement

- compromissory clause (treaty)

- optional clause declarations (principle of reciprocity)

- forum prorogatum (regards to no preliminary objections or serious provisional measures)

advisory jurisdiction of the ICJ

- legal advice to GA, SC, UN organs and specialised agencies (when authorised by the GA) which is a non-binding decision

- admissable questions: have to be legal

- lack of consent by states does not matter

intervention by state on an ICJ case

1) art.62 ICJ statute: if state has a legal interest (but if it is a right not interest, then monetary gold principle applies and state has to become party)

2) art.63 ICJ statute: ICJ allows a state to intervene about the particular interpretation of a treaty, but if it does the judgement becomes legally binding on it

prohibition of the use of force

- UN charter article 2(4) + jus cogens rule

- prohibits the use of force against:

- the territorial integrity of states

- political independence of states

- or any other manner inconsistent with purposes of the UN

conditions for the right to self defence (art.51 UN charter)

- against an armed attack

- against a member state

- must be reported to SC

- declaration of attack

- in case of collective self-defence, there must be a request for assistance (e.g in nicaragua there was none)

rules for self-defence once initiated

1) Necessity (+ immediacy)

- in respect to the concrete circumstances (falkland islands)

- generally the State cannot wait a lot of time before acting in self-defence

2) Proportionality

- quantitative perspective: should not be disproportionate to the armed attack

- or whatever is necessary to 'repel' the attack

armed activities by non-state actors: legal standards

1) No state involvement required: (targeting the non-state actor, not the state), but this is an unlikely legal argument

2) Attribution of conduct to a State: it is difficult to prove attribution via Art.8 ARSIWA but this is the path the ICJ takes most of the time

3) Substantial involvement of a State: offering coordination and weapons, but hard to prove

4) Harbour and support: has been argued in the past, but does not have a lot of strength because defining support is hard

5) Unable or unwilling doctrine: State is not willing or unable to prosecute/repress the armed activities of the non-state actor

contested justifications of self-defence

- anticipatory self-defence

- preventive military action (fails immediacy requirement)

- protection of nationals

humanitarian intervention

- A state intervenes in another state to protect human rights

- Qualifiers: Foreign state does not consent, the SC does not authorise it, and they are protecting the HR rights of the citizens of that State (not foreign nationals, otherwise would be protection of nationals)

- States often invoke self-defence because humanitarian intervention is contested

- Paradox: leads to not enough state practice

responsibility to protect

- States have to protect their population from all kinds of dangers (natural disasters, crimes against humanity, etc)

- ICISS and World Summit Outcome 2005 essentially made R2P impossible to invoke

- Action can only be taken through SC Chapter IV, meaning that there is the power of veto meaning they can block any SC resolution