International Current Issues Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

International Current Issues - Essay Example self-defence in international law Contemporary attitudes on the issue of pre-emptive self-defence appear to fall into four distinct schools of thought. The strict-constructionist school starts with the proposition that Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter details broader prohibition on the utilization of force. The utilization of force, as opposed to â€Å"war,† mirror a desire to ban transnational armed conflicts, not merely conflicts emanating from formal state of war. Strict constructionists’ highlights that Article 2 (4) ban any trans-boundary utilization of military force, inclusive of force justified by reference to the diverse doctrines established in the pre-Charter era of reprisal, forcible self-help, humanitarian intervention, and protection of nationals. Strict constructionist outlines that states may utilize force in self-defence as dictated by Article 51 of the UN charter. Proponents of the â€Å"imminent threat† school embrace the language of Article 51 speaks of self-defence in retaliation to an armed attack. However, proponents of this school of thought employ three lines of argument to progress a norm favouring a right of anticipatory self-defence, rather than pre-emptive self-defence. The proponents of this school of thought acknowledge that the UN Charter provides an intrinsic right to defend against an imminent threat. The provision â€Å"if an armed attack occurs† fails to impose conditions on the exercise of the intrinsic right; moreover, the broad meaning of the term â€Å"armed attack† accommodates the perception of â€Å"armed attack† as encompassing an attack that is imminent and inevitable. Nevertheless, proponents of this school of thought are unwilling to broaden the meaning of Article 51 beyond the notion of addressing imminent armed attack.2 This... This paper approves that the customary international law has a huge bearing on issues relating to self-defence. However, controversy still reigns since there is minimal scholarly consensus on the meaning of â€Å"imminence† within the context of contemporary threats. Furthermore, there is minimal consensus on who may be targeted in the sphere of non-state actors of those threatening, planning, perpetrating, and availing material support critical to organizing an armed attack. The labelling of an armed attack as â€Å"imminent† can be shaped by the relevant circumstances inclusive of the immediacy and nature of the threat; the possibility of an attack; whether the foreseen attack is part of a concerted pattern of persistent armed activity; the probability scale of the attack and the injury scale, or damage possible to emanate in the absence of mitigating action, and, the the probability that other opportunities to effect effective action in self-defence, which may yield to severe collateral injury, damage, or loss. This report makes a conclusion that opinions regarding the legality of self-defence under international law remain divided; one school of thought demands that an armed attack ought to occur prior to a state lawfully acting in self-defence. The resort to armed force remains outlawed as per the international law, except in cases where the UN Security Council awards permission. Military action ought to be employed as a last resort and must be essential to utilize force to deal with the precise threat at hand.