A reconsideration of the notion of self-defence under contemporary international law

Abstract

Self-defence is considered a legitimate action in the statute books of all civilized countries. How does this doctrine thrive in the case not of individual persons who find themselves threatened, but of countries who may feel themselves threatened by other countries, far and near? Bellicose actions - all-out war or limited military offensives - have been described as an extension of international diplomacy. Can such actions be curtailed, resisted, or even prevented in a juridically justifiable way through other military actions termed as lawful self-defence? A reconsideration of this argument entails an in-depth study of cases where the use of force has been considered legitimate within a juridical system with the twofold objective of safeguarding member states faced by possible violations of their rights and to issue sanctions against countries who have violated international law. Self-defence, notwithstanding its various controversial interpretations, easily symbolizes the close ties between the use of force and the application of the law. It occupies in international law a much wider space than it enjoys in other juridical systems. This is due to the fact that in the international legal system, the relationship between power and power politics emerges directly and in full.