Author:- MohitKumarTitle 0f the Paper:- “Use 0f Force Against ISIS”R0ll N0.:- 14252197Subject:- Law 0f International0rganization & Human RightsC0urse- LL.M.
(3YR)Year 0f Study- FIrstYearC0ntact N0.:- 9999474586E-mail- [email protected] Introduction The purp0se 0f th!sstudy !s t0 g!ve a clear underst&!ng 0f the !nternat!0nal law that g0vernedthe use 0f f0rce by the states f0r self defense. These rules are challenged w!ththe emergence N0n-State Act0rs & there was a d!spute as t0 whether therules/laws sh0uld be m0d!f!ed 0r redef!ned. !n !ts Res0lut!0n !nSeptember 2005, the UN General Assembly sa!d that the relevant pr0v!s!0ns 0fthe UN Charter are adequate t0 c0unter the full range 0f threats t0 !nternat!0nalpeace & secur!ty but the res0lut!0n d0es n0t say that when !t !s legal f0ra state t0 use f0rce !n the name 0f r!ght 0f self defense. Th!s study was d0ne,because ! bel!eve that w!th the emergence 0f these new challenges, !t !s !mp0rtantthat there sh0uld be clar!ty !n relat!0n t0 the rules 0f use 0f f0rce by thestates !n !nternat!0nal Relat!0n. Theuse 0f f0rce The term “law 0fwar” refers t0 tw0 rules, F!rst 0ne g0vernsthe use 0f f0rce & the Sec0nd 0ne g0vernsthe effect!ve c0nduct 0f f0rce !n !nternat!0nal law. The rules g0vern!ng theuse 0f f0rce f0rm a central element 0f !nternat!0nal law.
These n0rms, as wellas 0ther pr!nc!ples such as terr!t0r!al s0vere!gnty, !ndependence & equal!ty0f states, c0nst!tute the framew0rk 0f !nternat!0nal 0rder. Wh!le a nat!0nal (d0mest!c)system prescr!bes a m0n0p0ly 0n the use 0f f0rce by a state, t0 all0w the statet0 ma!nta!n !ts auth0r!ty & ma!nta!n c0ntr0l 0ver !ts terr!t0ry, & 0nthe 0ther h& !nternat!0nal law seeks t0 m!n!m!ze !t & regulate !t !n !nternat!0nalsphere t0 preserve & ma!nta!n peace & secur!ty !n the gl0bal c0mmun!ty. The p0s!t!0n 0f !nternat!0nallaw 0ver the use 0f f0rce by states has n0t been the same !n h!st0ry.
Rulesrelated t0 Use 0f F0rce bef0re 1945: – Earl!er !n the w0rld,war was c0nducted f0r var!0us reas0ns & causes w!th0ut d!st!nct!0n &was carr!ed 0ut w!th0ut l!m!ts 0r c0ntr0l. The d!st!nct!0n between “Just War” &”Unjust War” was there !n Chr!st!an!ty The d0ctr!ne 0f “Jus War” wasbased 0n the c0nv!ct!0n that f0rce c0uld be used !f !t c0nf0rmed t0 d!v!ne w!ll.The r!ght war sh0uld be used as the last sanct!0n f0r the ma!ntenance 0f an 0rderlys0c!ety. The use 0f f0rce must be str!ctly c0ntr0lled. St. Th0mas Aqu!nas !n the th!rteenth century made a new step !n thedef!n!t!0n 0f a just war, stat!ng that war c0uld be just!f!ed 0n c0nd!t!0n that!t was d!rected by s0vere!gn auth0r!ty, acc0mpan!ed by a just m&ate. The teach!ngs 0f Chr!st!an!ty0n the d!st!nct!0n between Just War & Unjust War have been ad0pted by the class!calauth0rs such as Alber!c0 Gent!l!(1552-1608) & h!s success0r Hug0 Gr0t!us(1583-1645). H0wever, all 0f these auth0rs ad0pted a d!fferent appr0ach 0n th!ssubject !n the l!ght 0f the emergence 0f Eur0pean nat!0n states & ult!matelychanged the d0ctr!ne 0f the Just War.
Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot
Theref0re, the d0ctr!ne 0f the Just War c0uldn0t be 0bject!vely appl!ed t0 determ!ne whether a war was just 0r n0t.Eventually, !n the e!ghteenth century, the d!st!nct!0n was ab&0ned. !n the n!neteenthcentury, the war !n the pract!ce 0f the Eur0pean States 0ften represented asthe last res0rt, as a means 0f settl!ng d!sputes. !t had t0 be just!f!ed !f !thad f0ught f0r the defense 0f certa!n v!tal !nterests. Each state rema!ns the s0lejudge 0f !ts v!tal !nterests. V!tal !nterests were a s0urce 0f p0l!t!cal just!f!cat!0ns& ap0l0g!es used f0r pr0pag&a purp0ses, n0t as a legal cr!ter!0n f0rthe leg!t!macy 0f the war.
!nternat!0nal jur!sts 0fthe n!neteenth century ab&0ned the emphas!s 0n the legal!ty 0f war & f0cusedm0re 0n the legal!ty 0f the c0nduct 0f war. Thus, dur!ng th!s century, !nternat!0nallaw rec0gn!zed a n0. 0f rules & l!m!tat!0ns 0n wars 0r f0rce !n general !n 0rdert0 m!n!m!ze the use 0f war 0r at least l!m!t !ts appl!cat!0n w!th s0me legal c0nsequences. The suffer!ng 0f the W0rldWar- !, has br0ught ab0ut a rev0lut!0nary change !n att!tudes t0wards war. Thed0ctr!ne 0f Just War was re-aff!rmed. The League 0f Nat!0ns, wh!le n0t f0rb!dd!ngthe use 0f war abs0lutely, !ntr0duced a d!fferent att!tude t0 the subject 0fwar !n !nternat!0nal law than ex!sted bef0re.
The General Treaty f0r the Renunc!at!0n0f War 1928 (kn0wn Br!&-Kell0gg Pact 0r Par!s Pact) als0 ad0pted t0 t0tallypr0h!b!t the use 0f f0rce. Th!s mult!lateral treaty c0ndemns the use 0f war t0res0lve !nternat!0nal c0nfl!cts & b!nd the state t0 settle the!r d!sputes 0rc0nfl!cts s0lely by peaceful means. Use0f f0rce under the Charter 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns:- The Charter 0f the Un!tedNat!0ns makes a fundamental d!st!nct!0n between the legal & !llegal use 0ff0rce. W!th th!s, !n a sense, the 0ld d!st!nct!0n between Just & Unjust Warhas been resurrected/re-aff!rmed !n !nternat!0nal law. !t als0 g0es bey0nd thep0s!t!0n 0f class!cal !nternat!0nal law t0wards the use 0f f0rce. Wh!le class!c!nternat!0nal law d0es n0t l!m!t the r!ght 0f States t0 use f0rce & g0 t0war, the Charter 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns establ!shes measures t0 c0ntr0l the use 0ff0rce, 0n the 0ne h& !t pr0h!b!ts the use 0f f0rce, & 0n the 0ther h&,!t all0ws the use 0f f0rce !n except!0nal cases. A.The pr0h!b!t!0n 0f the use 0f f0rce: – The preamble t0 the UNCharter beg!ns w!th the determ!nat!0n 0f the pe0ples 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns t0preserve succeed!ng generat!0ns fr0m the sc0urge 0f war & the!r des!re t0pract!ce t0lerance & l!ve !n peace w!th 0thers, as g00d ne!ghb0rs & w!th0utus!ng armed f0rce unless !t !s n0t !n the c0mm0n !nterest.
Art!cle 2(4) 0f the UNCharter:”Allmembers must refra!n !n the!r !nternat!0nal relat!0ns fr0m the threat 0r use 0ff0rce aga!nst the terr!t0r!al !ntegr!ty 0r p0l!t!cal !ndependence 0f any state,0r any 0ther manner !nc0mpat!ble w!th the purp0ses 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns.” Th!s art!cle establ!shesthe pr!nc!ple 0f the use 0f f0rce !n !nternat!0nal law by requ!r!ng the MembersStates 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns the fundamental 0bl!gat!0n t0 av0!d the threat 0ruse 0f f0rce !n the!r !nternat!0nal relat!0ns. The pr0v!s!0n 0f th!s art!cle !sun!versally val!d & !t !s c0ns!dered as a pr!nc!ple 0f cust0mary !nternat!0nallaw. The 1970 Declarat!0n 0nthe Pr!nc!ples 0f !nternat!0nal Law states that the threat 0r use 0f f0rce !s av!0lat!0n 0f !nternat!0nal law & the Charter 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns & sh0uldn0t be used as a means t0 res0lve !nternat!0nal c0nfl!cts. Each State mustrefra!n/absta!n fr0m 0rgan!z!ng, !nst!gat!ng, ass!st!ng 0r part!c!pat!ng w!th!n!ts terr!t0ry !n spread!ng the acts 0f terr0r!sm !n an0ther state, 0r all0w!ngact!v!t!es 0rgan!zed !n !ts terr!t0ry t0 beg!n such acts. B.Except!0ns t0 the pr0h!b!t!0n 0f the use 0f f0rce:There are certa!n except!0nst0 the Pr0h!b!t!0n 0f the Use 0f F0rce as pr0v!ded !n UN Charter & GeneralAssemble Res0lut!0ns:- I. Use 0f f0rce !n theexerc!se 0f the r!ght 0f !nd!v!dual 0r c0llect!ve self-defense U/a 51 0f the UNCharter.
II. Use 0f f0rce w!th the auth0r!zat!0n0f the Secur!ty C0unc!l under Chapter V!! 0f the UN Charter.III. Use 0f f0rce 0n the rec0mmendat!0n0f the General Assembly as pr0v!ded !n Res0lut!0n “Un!ty f0r Peace” !n 1950.
IV. Auth0r!zes pers0ns depr!ved0f p0wer t0 exerc!se the r!ght t0 self-determ!nat!0n, 0r under c0l0n!al rule, t0try t0 ach!eve the!r 0bject!ves !n self-determ!nat!0n & !ndependence pr0v!dedby 1974 General Assembly Res0lut!0n. (1)The r!ght t0 self-defense: – Art!cle 51 0f the Charter 0f the Un!ted Nat!0ns establ!shes: “N0th!ng !n th!sCharter shall underm!ne the !ntr!ns!c r!ght 0f !nd!v!dual 0r c0llect!veself-defense !f an armed attack 0ccurs aga!nst a Member State 0f the Un!ted Nat!0nsunt!l the Secur!ty C0unc!l has taken the necessary measures t0 ma!nta!n !nternat!0nalpeace & secur!ty.” !t !nd!cates that th!s r!ght !s reserved !ns0far as!t !s qual!f!ed !n !t & !n 0ther parts 0f the UN Charter.
There are tw0 c0ntrast!ng!nterpretat!0ns 0f the r!ght 0f self-defense enunc!ated !n Art!cle 51 0f the UNCharter, namely, the restr!ct!ve v!ew & the br0ad v!ew. Therestr!ct!ve v!ew:- !t !nd!cates that all use 0f f0rce !s !llegal,except when !t !s exerc!sed as a r!ght 0f self-defense !f an armed attack 0ccurs.Th!s r!ght !s n0t ava!lable aga!nst an act!0n that d0es n0t c0nst!tute an armedattack, regardless 0f the nature & sc0pe 0f such attacks. !n add!t!0n, th!sals0 !mpl!es that prevent!ve self-defense !s n0t all0wed U/a 51 0f the UN Charter.The argument !n fav0r 0f th!s v!ew !s that the pr!nc!ple 0f effect!veness requ!resa restr!ct!ve !nterpretat!0n 0f Art!cle 51. Thebr0ader v!ew:- !t !nd!cates that the use 0f f0rce !n self-defense !sexcluded fr0m the purv!ew/amb!t 0f the Art!cle 2 (4). The r!ght t0self-defense, wh!ch ex!sted as a natural & !ntr!ns!c r!ght !n the cust0mary!nternat!0nal law, g0es bey0nd the spec!f!c pr0v!s!0ns 0f Art!cle 51. The r!ghtt0 self-defense !s all0wed aga!nst an armed attack & any 0ther h0st!le act!0nthat !s n0t an armed attack.
Th!s !mpl!es that prevent!ve self-defense !s all0wedU/a 51. Regardless 0f the 0p!n!0n0f self-defense, !t !s well kn0wn that the exerc!se 0f th!s r!ght !n cust0mary !nternat!0nallaw has three fundamental legal requ!rements: · The use 0f peaceful pr0cedures,!f ava!lable.· Necess!ty.· Pr0p0rt!0nal!ty. These three requ!rementsare the fundamental elements that must be respected !n cust0mary !nternat!0nallaw t0 leg!t!mately !nv0ke the r!ght 0f self-defense aga!nst !llegally launchedf0rce.
(2)Use 0f f0rce w!th the appr0val 0f the Secur!ty C0unc!l: – The sec0nd except!0n t0the pr!nc!ple 0f pr0h!b!t!0n 0f the use 0f f0rce !n !nternat!0nal spheres !sestabl!shed U/a 42 0f Chapter V!! 0f the UN Charter. Art!cle 42 states that “theSecur!ty C0unc!l can take m!l!tary act!0n by a!r, sea 0r l&, as necessary &adequate t0 ma!nta!n 0r rest0re !nternat!0nal peace & secur!ty these act!0ns!ncludes dem0nstrat!0ns & bl0ckades etc”. Th!s means that 0nly the Secur!tyC0unc!l has the p0wer t0 0rder 0r auth0r!ze the use 0f f0rce !n !nternat!0nalsphere, h0wever, the C0unc!l !s requ!red t0 f0ll0w the prescr!bed pr0cedures aspr0v!ded !n Chapter V!! 0f the UN Charter. (3)Use 0f F0rce !n a rec0mmendat!0n 0f the General Assembly: – The res0lut!0n “Un!t!ngf0r Peace” has ad0pted by GeneralAssembly !n 1950, !t grants them the capac!ty t0 ma!nta!n !nternat!0nal peace &secur!ty !n add!t!0n t0 Secur!ty C0unc!l. Th!s res0lut!0n pr0v!des that theGeneral Assembly can make rec0mmendat!0ns 0n everyth!ng wh!ch the Secur!ty C0unc!lcan d0 under Chapter V!!.
The Assembly may make appr0pr!ate rec0mmendat!0ns t0members f0r c0llect!ve act!0n, !nclud!ng the use 0f armed f0rces, !f the Secur!tyC0unc!l fa!ls t0 take any step. (4)Use 0f f0rce by the pe0ples f0r self-determ!nat!0n & !ndependence:- Art!cle 7 0f theGeneral Assembly Res0lut!0n 0f 1974 “0n the Def!n!t!0n 0f Aggress!0n” guaranteest0 the d!sadvantaged pe0ples the!r r!ght t0 self-determ!nat!0n, freed0m & !ndependence,espec!ally pe0ple under c0l0n!al & rac!st reg!mes 0r 0ther f0rms 0f f0re!gnd0m!nat!0n, the r!ght t0 f!ght f0r self-determ!nat!0n, freed0m & !ndependence.Th!s !mpl!es that these pe0ple can use armed f0rce !n the!r struggle. H0wthe war aga!nst !S changed the !nternat!0nal law 0n the use 0f f0rce. Br!efh!st0ry 0f events:- !n 2014, a terr0r!st gr0up!slam!c State (!S!S) 0ccup!ed m0re than 30% 0f Syr!a & !raq, !nclud!ng 0!l f!elds& ref!ner!es, banks & ant!ques, tanks & weap0ns, & threatened thepeace & secur!ty 0f the M!ddle East. W!th the help 0f s0me Western &Arab c0untr!es, the Un!ted States launched an !nvas!0n (0perat!0n !nherent Res0lve)0n !S!S !n !raq & Syr!a, t0 0verthr0w !S!S.
When !raq c0nsented t0 theattacks 0n !ts terr!t0ry, the Syr!an G0vernment 0pp0sed the attack 0n !ts terr!t0ry& argued that !t was an !nappr0pr!ate v!0lat!0n 0f !nternat!0nal law. Acc0rd!ng t0 !nternat!0nallaw, a state can use m!l!tary f0rce !n the terr!t0ry 0f the 0ther state !nthree s!tuat!0ns:I. W!th that c0untry’s c0nsent.II.
W!th the auth0r!ty 0fthe Secur!ty C0unc!l.III. When act!ng !n self defenseaga!nst an armed attack. The use 0f f0rce !n !raq!s !n l!ne w!th the pr!nc!ples 0f !nternat!0nal law, but the use 0f f0rce !nSyr!a !s n0t !n acc0rdance w!th the law. Except the Russ!an !ntervent!0n as !twas auth0r!zed by the Syr!an g0vernment The Un!ted States &!ts all!es gave several reas0ns f0r the legal!ty 0f the use 0f f0rce, e.g.Human!tar!an !ntervent!0n, A R!ght t0 Use 0f F0rce !n a Fa!led State, R!ght 0fH0t Pursu!t & f!nally the C0llect!ve Self-Defence 0n behalf 0f !raq. Pres!dent0bama auth0r!zed the attack 0n !S!S: “When we have the un!que ab!l!ty t0st0p the massacre, then the Un!ted States can n0t cl0se !ts eyes.
” The wh0le scenar!0 hasbeen changed after !S!S has b0mbarded a Russ!an a!rplane & k!ll!ng ar0und 224passengers & attack !n a C0ncert !n Par!s k!ll!ng ar0und 130 pe0ple, !nresp0nse t0 these atr0c!t!es, the Secur!ty C0unc!l unan!m0usly ad0pted a “Res0lut!0n2249”, ann0unc!ng that !S!S !s a threat t0 !nternat!0nal peace & secur!ty called f0r the measures t0 el!m!nate safe havens establ!shed by !S!S !n Syr!a. Thechang!ng law 0f self-defense aga!nst n0n-state act0rs:- The Syr!an g0vernmenthas sh0wn that !t can n0t & d0es n0t effect!vely address/el!m!nate thesesafe haven 0f !S!S. As a result, the Un!ted States has launched necessary !0nate m!l!tary act!0ns !n Syr!a t0 el!m!nate the threat 0f !S!S !n !raq,pr0tect!ng !raq! c!t!zens fr0m further attacks & all0w !raq! f0rces t0resume c0ntr0l 0f the !raq! b0rder.
The Un!ted States hasargued that !t can attack !S!S targets !n Syr!a w!th0ut the c0nsent 0f Syr!abecause:I. !S!S threatens !raq.II. !raq has s0ught help fr0mthe Un!ted States.III. !S!S has secured safehavens !n Syr!a.IV.
The Syr!an g0vernmentwas unable t0 deal effect!vely w!th !S!S. Un!ted States !n part!cularhas n0t argued that the Syr!an G0vernment effect!vely c0ntr0l !S!S, & !tsargument !s !n der0gat!0n 0f cust0mary law as ma!nta!ned !n N!caragua case that”the v!ct!m state may n0t use f0rce !n resp0nse t0 attacks by n0n-stateact0rs, unless these act0rs have actually been c0ntr0lled by that state. ” Use0f f0rce aga!nst N0n-State Act0rs bef0re 9/11: – Art!cle 2 (4) R/w Art!cle51 0f the UN Charter pr0h!b!ts the use 0f f0rce at !nternat!0nal level 0n 0ne h&,& all0w !t 0n the 0ther h& !n s0me except!0nal c!rcumstances as !n theevent 0f an armed attack. But the pr0blem !s that the wh0le charter n0where def!nesthe term armed attack, theref0re, !n the N!caragua case, the !CJ held that “them0st severe f0rms 0f use 0f f0rce c0nst!tute an armed attack & tr!gger ther!ght t0 use f0rce !n self-defence”. !n add!t!0n, the !CJ als0 expressed the v!ewthat small-scale attacks may !n aggregate c0nst!tute an armed attack. The !CJhas ruled the d0ctr!ne 0f state attr!but!0n, that unless the act!0ns 0f n0n-stateact0rs are attr!butable t0 terr!t0r!al states, the use 0f f0rce aga!nst n0n-stateact0rs !n that state !s !llegal & c0ntrary t0 cust0mary !nternat!0nal law.The use 0f self-defense f0rce aga!nst that State may c0ll!de w!th 0ther pr!nc!ples0f !nternat!0nal law such as the s0vere!gnty 0f States & the pr0h!b!t!0n 0nthe use 0f f0rce !n !nternat!0nal law. !n add!t!0n t0 th!s !CJ held !n the 0!lPlatf0rms Case, The C0ng0 Case & the Wall Case that the use 0f f0rce aga!nstN0n-State Act0rs wh0se c0nduct !s n0t attr!butable t0 the State w0uld !tself c0nst!tute& unlawful armed attack.
Newemerg!ng trends !n the use 0f f0rce after 9/11: The emergence 0f the N0n-StateAct0rs !s new k!nd 0f threat t0 the peace & secur!ty 0f the W0rld as these N0n-StateAct0rs have n0 l!m!ts & they are capable 0f destr0y!ng any place !n the w0rldw!th the ass!stance 0f latest techn0l0gy. These N0n-State Act0rs 0ften 0peratefr0m a fa!led state w!th0ut the supp0rt 0f the g0vernment. The 9/11 attacks f0rcedstates t0 reassess the ant!quated !dea that 0nly a state has the capac!ty t0carry 0ut an armed attack aga!nst an0ther state, t0 grant the r!ght t0 use f0rcet0 defend !tself. Because these new ent!t!es have many 0f the attr!butes 0fstate such as wealth, v0luntary f0rces, tra!n!ng & p0tent!al access t0 weap0ns0f mass destruct!0n & !f these ent!t!es c0mm!t a ser!es 0f attacks aga!nsta State & the acts are suff!c!ent t0 c0nst!tute an armed attack, then theuse 0f f0rce !n self-defense must be all0wed aga!nst th0se wh0 p0se a c0nstantthreat. Many c0untr!es have accepted th!s !dea & have aff!rmed the Un!tedStates’ agenda aga!nst Al Qaeda.
!n acc0rdance w!th these devel0pments, theSecur!ty C0unc!l ad0pted Res0lut!0n 1368, wh!ch c0ndemned the attacks 0f 9/11 &rec0gn!zed the natural r!ght 0f self-defense (!nd!v!dual 0r c0llect!ve). !t !sa c0nf!rmat!0n that the Un!ted States c0uld have the r!ght t0 resp0nd w!th theuse 0f f0rce f0r aga!nst the Al Qaeda desp!te the fact that !t was a n0n-stateact0r, 0ther c0untr!es w!th w0rds & act!0ns expressed supp0rt f0r the 0perat!0n.!t clearly a rad!cal departure fr0m the N!caragua verd!ct & the newtendency was based 0n the verd!ct 0f C0rfu Channel Case “that any state d0es n0tkn0w!ngly all0w !ts terr!t0ry t0 be used f0r acts c0ntrary t0 the r!ghts 0f 0therstates”. The Secur!ty C0unc!ls’ Res0lut!0n 1373 has als0 c0nf!rmed th!s devel0pment!n !nternat!0nal Law. !t establ!shes the r!ght t0 self-defense aga!nst N0n-StateAct0rs & at the same t!me pr0h!b!ts the state t0 all0w !ts terr!t0ry t0 beused as a refuge by the N0n-State Act0rs. S0me Academ!cs & s0memembers 0f the !CJ have p0!nted 0ut that the !CJ was !n c0ntrad!ct!0n w!th cust0mary!nternat!0nal law 0n self-defense, the Car0l!ne case, c0nf!rmed the prevent!veself-defense & c0ns!der !t legal aga!nst n0n-state act0rs wh0se c0nduct wasn0t attr!butable t0 a state. !n The Wall case, Judge H!gg!ns sa!d that”there !s n0th!ng !n the text 0f Art!cle 51 that establ!shes thatself-defense !s 0nly ava!lable when a state arms an armed attack.” !n C0ng0case, Judge K00j!mans sa!d “!t !s n0t reas0nable t0 deny that the r!ght t0self-defense !s n0t ava!lable just because there was n0 attacker state.
“Judge S!mma !n the C0ng0 stated that “Secur!ty C0unc!l res0lut!0ns 1368 &1373 can 0nly be read as statements 0f 0p!n!0n that large-scale attacks by n0n-stateact0rs can be c0ns!dered armed attacks under Art!cle 51”. Th0ugh the law had n0t beenclearly establ!shed 0n the eve 0f the US attack 0n !S!S !n Syr!a !n 2014, butth!s event pr0v!ded the f!nal push t0 crystall!ze the new self-defense rule. Val!d!tyt0 the new emerg!ng trend: – The Secur!ty C0unc!lunan!m0usly appr0ved Res0lut!0n 2249 after the b0mb!ng by !S!S 0n Russ!an Jetl!ner& attacks 0n stad!um & !n c0ncert !n Par!s !n the late 2015, the res0lut!0nstates that “!S!S !s a gl0bal threat f0r !nternat!0nal peace & secur!ty& has called f0r all necessary measures t0 erad!cate the safe harb0r establ!shed!n Syr!a.” The attacks 0f 31.10.
2015 & 13.11.2015 marked a turn!ng p0!nt.
These attacks have sh0wn that !S!S !s the r!chest & techn0l0g!callyadvanced terr0r!st gr0up !n the w0rld, & n0 l0nger l!m!ts !ts terr!t0r!alacqu!s!t!0n g0als !n Syr!a & !raq, but has ad0pted the m0del 0f an0therterr0r!st gr0up that f0cuses 0n address!ng vulnerable targets all ar0und the w0rld. C0nclus!0n: !n th!s paper ! have exam!nedwhether the use 0f f0rce aga!nst !S!S has changed the !nternat!0nal law !shes a new !nternat!0nal cust0mary law by rec0gn!z!ng the R!ght 0f Use 0fF0rce aga!nst the N0n-State Act0rs !n the terr!t0ry 0f the h0st state. !ngeneral, cust0mary !nternat!0nal law requ!res many decades t0 crystall!ze. But !nth!s c0ntext, 14 years w0uld be alm0st !nstantane0us, as !n the cases 0f the establ!shment0f Nuremberg Tr!bunal & the Yug0slav!a Tr!bunal.
These N0n-State Act0rsare seen as a new type 0f threat, where a n0n-state act0r has many 0f the attr!butes0f a state: en0rm0us wealth, s0ph!st!cated tra!n!ng & 0rgan!zat!0n, t0 destruct!ve weap0ns. T0 resp0nd t0 the fundamental change presentedby these new ent!t!es, the Un!ted States has argued that !t !s n0w p0ss!ble lawful t0 attack such n0n-state act0rs when they are present !n a statethat can n0t 0r w!ll n0t st0p them (Unable 0r Unw!ll!ng). !n l!ght 0f the !nvas!0n0f the Afghan!stan !n 2001 f0r the reduct!0n 0f Al Qaeda & n0 maj0r pr0testsaga!nst the dr0ne attacks aga!nst the leaders 0f Al Qaeda !n Pak!stan, S0mal!a,!raq & Yemen, the !nternat!0nal Law seemed t0 be m0v!ng rap!dly t0wards thead0pt!0n 0f the pr!nc!ple 0f “Unable & Unw!ll!ng” !n “Self-Defense”. Th!s r!ght !s subject t0several l!m!tat!0ns that prevent the p0ss!b!l!ty 0f abuse:-I. The !nd!v!dual 0raggregate act!0ns 0f n0n-state act0rs must be equ!valent t0 an armed attack t0act!vate the r!ght t0 use 0f f0rce !n self-defense.
II. The use 0f f0rce mustbe d!rected aga!nst n0n-state act0rs 0nly, n0t aga!nst the state 0r !ts armed f0rces,unless the state has effect!ve c0ntr0l 0ver n0n-state act0rs.III. M!l!tary act!0ns mustrespect the pr!nc!ples 0f necess!ty & pr0p0rt!0nal!ty.
0ther l!m!tat!0ns are l!kelyt0 devel0p !n the future acc0rd!ng t0 the !nternat!0nal resp0nse t0 !nv0cat!0n !cat!0n 0f th!s the new rule.
