Use of Force, Intervention, and Self-Defense under International Law

Article 2, Clause 4 of the UN Charter addresses the prohibition of the use of force.
Exceptions include the right to self-defense as outlined in Article 51.
Article 2 Clause 4: All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- Prohibits both the threat and the actual use of force.
- Prohibits force against territorial integrity or political independence, and actions inconsistent with UN purposes.
- Does not use the word "war" to allow for broader application, as the discourse of war may change.
- The restrictions are not absolute, as Article 51 provides exceptions.
- The term "use of force" includes military, political, and economic forces, such as economic sanctions and naval blockades.
- This forms international customary law, legally binding for both members and non-members of the United Nations.
- Qualifies as a peremptory norm, or jus cogens, of international law, meaning no derogation is possible.

Anticipatory Self Defense: Military action that is taken against an imminent attack. Highly debatable because it runs against the principle of Article 51.
Arguments Against Anticipatory Self Defense:
- Article 2 clause 4 and 51 confirms that neither the threat of force nor an immediate harm attack justify the use of decency force.
- The purpose of United Nation chartered is to minimize the unilateral use of force in international relations.
Arguments in favor of Anticipatory Self Defense:
- Certain degree of justification is available under cast of international law.
  - Carolina incident; British authorities attacked the ship. Mr. Ferster said that anticipatory self defense exist but it has requirements: situation was so imident and another choice.
- Some author suggest that there is an inherent right of self defence available to every country.
- It is possible that e first attack a victim state might not stand in chance of self defense. So it needs to defend itself before the attack.
Preemptive Self Defense: Military action that is taken against the threat who has not yet materialized and which is uncertain and remote in time.
- Not allowed. States shall not allowed to use force againsts another state when an arm attack is near a hypothetical possibility, near hypothetical possibility per. It would give the power to open a Pandara Box.
- Only Organization that can use preemptive self defense that is Security Council.

US Intervention in Iraq (2003): Illegal, as there was no Security Council resolution and Iraq had not done anything to trigger the right of self-defense for the USA.
Whether possession of such weapon, possession of the weapon of mass destruction amounts to armed attack on not (no). Although I can understand the emotions and sentiments because the world has very threa, but we have seen that threat is not covered under the of armer attack and article 51 can not be triggered.
US Intervention in Iraq (1991): Justified because Security Council Resolution allowed 35 countries to strike Iraq from Kuwait.
India's Surgical Strike: Justified because India can explain it that India is under constant armed attack has right to self defence.
- Surgical strike has followed the principles of proportionality and necessity.

All states have the right of self-defense against an actual armed attack.
States may have a limited right of anticipatory self-defense against an imminent armed attack of sufficient gravity.
States do not have the right of creative self defence againts the threat which has yet not materialized and uncertain.
A non state armed attack may trigger he right of self-defense if such an attack is of suffcient gravitiy and involvement of a state is of suffiecient degree.
If any use of course is backed by seaurity council resolution it shall be considered justified.

Agreement upon 1 party is treated as an attack upon all. Some agreements that exists:
- Nato
- Warsaa act
US versus Kengaradhua case: right to collect self defense but any country which is claiming that right under or the right to use self defence under collective self defence system, it has to be first attacker.

Intervention or intervention is an interference by a state in the affaris of another state for the purpose of maintaining or alttering the actual condition of things is called intervention.
Article 2 clause 7 of UN Charter: provides the primary rule of this topic which provides that thing contained to authorize the United Nation to intervene in matters which are essentilly within the domestic jurisdiction of any state and Shall Not intervine in in any country internally, non intervention. KORPU CHANNEL CASE:
- The case was happened between Bretet and Aulpania.
  - Theprinciple of non intervention is a part of customer international law and founded upon the concept of respect for the territorial of the states. Hence in principle intervention is not justified except in certain circumstances.
It bring fall to the next important topic that what are those circumstances where intervention is allowed: self defence article 52 and security council actions.

It means intervention in order to protect the lives of person situated within a particular state and not neccesarilly national of the intermining state. Argument against Human Intervention:
- In the light of article 2 close 4 and clause 7, it is very difficult to justify humanitarian intervention because it also it goes again the provisions of article 2 of 7 of the UN charter where it says no intervation.
- Humanitarian intervention may not a bit charter but development in state practice might make it legal under certain circumstances.
- Because it involves violation of soverignity of the other party
- That is a threat to sovereignty and it would violate the sovreignity of the other coutnries/ states.
Argument in favour of material intervention.
- The banging on war in article 2 clause 4 lost its legal force by being repeatedlyviolated by states in practice. there is the, there is threfore operative international law lefft in that article, so the humantiarian interntion should be allowed.
- The normative enviornment of world politics has changed such rule of non intervention has recent
- In phase of progress of law humanitarian.
  - The 2 concepts of soverignity and humanitation intervention is fact complicatry and rather than contradictory.