PIL

USE OF FORCE BY STATES

un charter art. 2:4

all UN members shall refrain in their int'l relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integritigy or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
(i.e. US Airstrikes begin in Syria)

not within a state's own territory

Prohibition on use of force by states

1. how
2. why? sources (why binding on states)
3. What? (are covered?)
4. Who? subjects (who are covered?)

Hugo grotius - father of international law

"rights of war and peace" (1625)

Countries are not prohibited to wage war. What the international law regulated are
the conditions of waging war. Whether it was just in engaging in war.

1.

1600s - right to wage war

1919 - league of nations covenant (preconditions to waging war - there must be
inquiries, consultations, etc. before waging war)
- this was toothless, was not able to prevent wars; actually led to WWII
1928 - Kellogg-Briand (Paris) Pact - agreement to renounce war
- condemn recourse to war for the solution of intl contorversies, etc.
(reflected in our own 1987 constitution)
1945 - UN Charter
- change in terminology FROM war TO use of force
- war is formal; requires a declation
- use of force is broader; prohibits the use of force whether or not it
constitutes war

2. Why?
1. Treaty: UN CHARTER
2. Customary law: Nicaragua v US
- not subsumed or supervened after codification
- jus cogens norm (parang customary rule na siya sa domestic)

3. What?
General rule: No threat or use of force by one state against another (UN Chater
Art. 2:4)
Exc 1: Self-defense
Exc 2: collective action (un charter ch vii)

Related concepts
"use of force" - use of weapons that may cause damage to life, limb, and property
"intervvention" - prohibited under UN charter; use of force, or use of economic or
political pressure
"armed conflict" - for IHL, (i) use of force by armed forces of one state against
armed forces of another, or (ii) occupation of territory even if no armed
resistance
"armed attact" - for self-defense
"breach of the peace"

can u have use of force w/o breach of peace?

is breach of the peace a higher standard than use of force?

scope of prohibition
- UN charter art. 2:4 "...terrirotiral integrity or political independence..."
1. only by UN members? - APPLIES TO ALL STATES?
2. Only against other UN members? - NO, against ANY state
3. Only military force? - can be armed forces; if non-regular are considered agents
by the state - actions are imputable to the state and constitutes use of force by
that state

manner by which used?

- direct - state lodges missiles; etc.
- indirect

types of actions by a state

a. providing financing
b. providing miliary logistics
c. organizing, directing, and sending non-regular armed forces
-al lthree are violative of the prohbition against rule on non-intervention

first kind
- but no necessariliy prohibition against use of force

second kind
- ineidrect use of force
- will violate porhibition against use of force

third kind
- use of force

4. only against territorial integrity or politigal independence?

i.e. us saying that is it only bombing ISIS and not syria - NO
- any use of force
- no need to prove the purpose/effect

UN Purpose -
- one of purposes of un is to maintain intl peace and security
- first and foremost, un is a security organization
very strong security council, very weak general assembly

EXC 1: self-defense

UN charter, Art. 51
merely recognizes an inherent power
exists independent of the UN charter

2 kinds
1. individual
2.collective - one state will use force to defend another state; part of its group
a. multilateral
b. regional
EXC 2: collective action
UN charter art. 2:4:1 - un sc has primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security
UN chapter vii - threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of
aggression
art. 42 - un sc may take military action
art. 48 -

Process
Step 1: art 39. - determine existence of any threat to the peace, etc
step 2: art 39 - make recomm or decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or
restore intl peace and security

UN security council
executive committee of the un

EXC 3: Humanitarian intervention

(question if this is a third exception - a big debate)
- i.e. why asean must intervene in the rohingya crisis

- tranditional view - not a third exception

4. who?
1. states
- individually
-collectively

2. non-states
intl orgs
juridical persons
natural persons