PIL week 6 assignment
1. Article 2(4) and the exceptions
Alpha and Beta are neighbouring States. Very large numbers of ethnic Alphans live in
Beta, of which State they are nationals. They suffer racist attacks by ethnic Betans. The
Government of Beta does nothing to condemn the attacks or to protect the Alphans from
them. Furthermore, under Betan law, Alphans are prohibited from establishing their own
schools or places of worship, although no such prohibitions apply to any other ethnic
group. The attacks on Alphans in Beta are becoming increasingly violent. Many ethnic
Alphans, fearing for their lives, cross the border into Alpha. The Government of Alpha,
announces that any further attacks upon ethnic Alphans in Beta will be regarded as
attacks upon Alpha itself. Nevertheless, the attacks on ethnic Alphans in Beta continue.
Advise Alpha whether (i) it is entitled to use force in Beta to restore public order and to
protect ethnic Alphans;
Art.2(4) UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State. In the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in
the Domestic Affairs of States sets out: ‘no State has the right to intervene, directly or
indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State’.
An intervention to protect the lives of persons situated within a particular State and not
necessarily nationals of the intervening State is permissible in strictly defined situations.
However, practice has also been in general, unfavourable, since it might be used to justify
interventions by more forceful States into the territories of weaker States. It could be
argued that Alpha's intervention could fall under humanitarian aid due to the ethnic attacks
on Alphan’s. Any action would be for the protection of those victims with only as much force
as would be necessary for such protection.
and (ii) Beta is entitled to use force against Alpha in order to prevent Alpha from acting to
protect the ethnic Alphans;
Self-defence is restricted to responses to actual armed attacks. Anticipatory self-defence is
where an armed attack is foreseeable. An interceptive self-defence is where an armed
attack is imminent and unavoidable so that the evidential problems and temptations of the
former concept are avoided without dooming threatened States to making the choice
between violating international law and suffering the actual assault. Much depends on the
characterisation of the threat and nature of the response, for it has to be proportionate.
Any act of self-defence must be necessary and proportionate. Beta has a right to defend its
territorial integrity, regardless as to their actions/omissions on ethnic Alphan’s.
(iii) is Beta in violation of Article 2(4), UN Charter, if it uses force against ethnic Alphans in
the territory of Beta?
Art.2(4) UN Charter declares: ‘all members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force…in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Since
the purpose of the UN is to create international peace and security and remove such
threats, as held in Art.1 UN Charter, this can lead us to conclude that Beta would still be in
violation of the UN Charter since Beta’s attacks on ethnic Alphan’s are considered acts of
aggression and would be a breach of the peace.
, Assignment 2
Letter dated 7 June 2016 from the Permanent Representative of
Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the President of the
Security Council (para 3):
“ISIL has occupied a certain part of Syrian territory over which
the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic does not, at this
time, exercise effective control. In the light of this exceptional
situation, States that have been subjected to armed attack by
ISIL originating in that part of the Syrian territory are therefore
justified under Article 51 of the Charter to take necessary
measures of self-defence. Exercising the right of collective self-
defence, Belgium will support the military measures of those
States that have been subjected to attacks by ISIL. Those
measures are directed against the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq
and the Levant” and not against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
Do you agree with this position of the Kingdom of Belgium? In
your answer pay specific attention to the following issues:
1. i.) Is the right to self-defence triggered only when an armed
attack has occurred?
Yes, according to the art 51.
2. ii.) Can an armed attack come from a non-state actor?
Armed attack is considered to come from the state for the UN
Charter articles to be triggered. Therefore, it cannot come from the
non-state actor.
3. iii.) Is it possible to exercise self-defence against a non-
state actor which by definition cannot have a territory under
international law?
Such self-defence would then not fall under the int law.
---------
Tutorial notes
1. Article 2(4) and the exceptions
i. it is entitled to use force in Beta to restore public order and to protect ethnic
Alphans;
-yes, state has righ of responsibility to protect people and does not authorise use
of force.
1. Article 2(4) and the exceptions
Alpha and Beta are neighbouring States. Very large numbers of ethnic Alphans live in
Beta, of which State they are nationals. They suffer racist attacks by ethnic Betans. The
Government of Beta does nothing to condemn the attacks or to protect the Alphans from
them. Furthermore, under Betan law, Alphans are prohibited from establishing their own
schools or places of worship, although no such prohibitions apply to any other ethnic
group. The attacks on Alphans in Beta are becoming increasingly violent. Many ethnic
Alphans, fearing for their lives, cross the border into Alpha. The Government of Alpha,
announces that any further attacks upon ethnic Alphans in Beta will be regarded as
attacks upon Alpha itself. Nevertheless, the attacks on ethnic Alphans in Beta continue.
Advise Alpha whether (i) it is entitled to use force in Beta to restore public order and to
protect ethnic Alphans;
Art.2(4) UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State. In the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in
the Domestic Affairs of States sets out: ‘no State has the right to intervene, directly or
indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State’.
An intervention to protect the lives of persons situated within a particular State and not
necessarily nationals of the intervening State is permissible in strictly defined situations.
However, practice has also been in general, unfavourable, since it might be used to justify
interventions by more forceful States into the territories of weaker States. It could be
argued that Alpha's intervention could fall under humanitarian aid due to the ethnic attacks
on Alphan’s. Any action would be for the protection of those victims with only as much force
as would be necessary for such protection.
and (ii) Beta is entitled to use force against Alpha in order to prevent Alpha from acting to
protect the ethnic Alphans;
Self-defence is restricted to responses to actual armed attacks. Anticipatory self-defence is
where an armed attack is foreseeable. An interceptive self-defence is where an armed
attack is imminent and unavoidable so that the evidential problems and temptations of the
former concept are avoided without dooming threatened States to making the choice
between violating international law and suffering the actual assault. Much depends on the
characterisation of the threat and nature of the response, for it has to be proportionate.
Any act of self-defence must be necessary and proportionate. Beta has a right to defend its
territorial integrity, regardless as to their actions/omissions on ethnic Alphan’s.
(iii) is Beta in violation of Article 2(4), UN Charter, if it uses force against ethnic Alphans in
the territory of Beta?
Art.2(4) UN Charter declares: ‘all members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force…in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. Since
the purpose of the UN is to create international peace and security and remove such
threats, as held in Art.1 UN Charter, this can lead us to conclude that Beta would still be in
violation of the UN Charter since Beta’s attacks on ethnic Alphan’s are considered acts of
aggression and would be a breach of the peace.
, Assignment 2
Letter dated 7 June 2016 from the Permanent Representative of
Belgium to the United Nations addressed to the President of the
Security Council (para 3):
“ISIL has occupied a certain part of Syrian territory over which
the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic does not, at this
time, exercise effective control. In the light of this exceptional
situation, States that have been subjected to armed attack by
ISIL originating in that part of the Syrian territory are therefore
justified under Article 51 of the Charter to take necessary
measures of self-defence. Exercising the right of collective self-
defence, Belgium will support the military measures of those
States that have been subjected to attacks by ISIL. Those
measures are directed against the so-called “Islamic State in Iraq
and the Levant” and not against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
Do you agree with this position of the Kingdom of Belgium? In
your answer pay specific attention to the following issues:
1. i.) Is the right to self-defence triggered only when an armed
attack has occurred?
Yes, according to the art 51.
2. ii.) Can an armed attack come from a non-state actor?
Armed attack is considered to come from the state for the UN
Charter articles to be triggered. Therefore, it cannot come from the
non-state actor.
3. iii.) Is it possible to exercise self-defence against a non-
state actor which by definition cannot have a territory under
international law?
Such self-defence would then not fall under the int law.
---------
Tutorial notes
1. Article 2(4) and the exceptions
i. it is entitled to use force in Beta to restore public order and to protect ethnic
Alphans;
-yes, state has righ of responsibility to protect people and does not authorise use
of force.
