The Right to Self-Defence in National and International Law: The Role of the Imminence Requirement

Abstract

This article explores the doctrine of self-defence within the context of the challenges directed at the imminence requirement, from the perspective of both national and international law. The article will attempt to illustrate that the requirement of imminence underlines the political character of the self-defence doctrine wherein private force may only be resorted to in the absence of institutional protection. This study will argue that the imminence rule can not merely be regarded as a "proxy" for establishing necessity; rather, the elements of imminence, necessity, and proportionality are inextricably connected to ensure that defensive force is only resorted to when national or international authorities are not in a position to prevent an illegal aggression, and that the defensive lethal force is not abused.

When May UN Peacekeepers Use Lethal Force to Protect Civilians? Reconciling Threats to Civilians, Imminence, and the Right to Life

“…177 Any 'time lag' between the threat or action and the response undermines, in principle, the potential to invoke self-defence or defence of others. 178 Determining whether a threat is 'imminent' or 'immediate' is, to quote former Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns, 'a matter of seconds, not hours'. 179 Moreover, often there is not only a temporal proximity between the defensive action and the (foiled) attack, but also a geographical proximity of the attacker to the target, meaning that the attacker no longer needs to take preparatory steps to carry out the threat.…”

Safeguarding the National Airspace of Indonesia under the Framework of International Air Law

“…Accordingly, there is no connection between armed attacks and the right to defend oneself. States cannot simply wait for a new armed attack to be able to defend itself (Bakircioglu, 2009).…”

Zeyti̇n Dali Harekâti: Türki̇ye’ni̇n Suri̇ye’ye Sinir Ötesi̇ Operasyonu Ve Meşru Müdafaa Hakki

“…Yakın tehlike saldırı ihtimalinin varlığı olarak yorumlanabilecek bir durumdur ve BM Antlaşması'yla açıklanan bir unsur değildir. Bununla ilgili olarak Bakırcıoğlu (2009) yakın tehlike halinin tek başına meşru müdafaayı gerektirecek bir unsur olarak değerlendirilemeyeceğini belirtmektedir. Bunun yerine bu unsurun orantılılık ve zorunluluk ölçütleriyle birlikte ve ancak ulusal ve uluslararası otoritelerin müdahale edecek durumda olmadığı durumlarda savunma hakkını doğuracağını savunmaktadır (Bakırcıoğlu, 2009: 1).…”