War, Aggression and Self-Defence

Abstract

Yoram Dinstein's seminal textbook is an essential guide to the legal issues of war and peace, armed attack, self-defence and enforcement measures taken under the aegis of the Security Council. This third edition incorporates new material on the Kosovo air campaign, 'humanitarian intervention', recent resolutions adopted by the Security Council, the latest pronouncements of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Also discussed are new treaties including the 1998 Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court and current studies of the International Law Commission. In addition, supplementary sections consider, for example, enforcement action carried out by regional organizations under the authority of the Security Council. War, Aggression and Self-Defence remains a comprehensive and highly readable introduction to the legal issues surrounding war and self-defence, and continues to provide an indispensable tool for students and practitioners of international law, international relations and military studies.

The Baltic states should adopt the self-defence pinpricks doctrine: the “accumulation of events” threshold as a deterrent to Russian hybrid warfare

“…This legal notion has widely been studied and analysed by the relevant legal doctrine (Bowett, 1958;Zourek, 1975;Dinstein, 2005;Green, 2009).17 14 This new hybrid warfare tactic relies on proxies and surrogates to prevent attribution and intent and to maximize confusion and uncertainty. This is the reason I previously mentioned a Russian "lawfare" in Ukraine.…”

“…The presumed victim State must verify that its armed reaction is necessary (Dinstein, 2005) This definition was an attempt by the international community to clarify the notion of "armed attack" and the legal framework in which the presumed victim State must manoeuvre when it uses armed force with the aim of self-preservation. However, the Resolution's definition of aggression does not clarify all the issues of Article 51 since it only mentions the armed version of an aggression,24 and is not a binding document.…”

“…States have an "inherent right of self-defence" under conventional public international law.4 This principle is a fundamental regulation of inter-State relations (Dinstein, 2005).5 It guarantees each State the right to defend itself in case the international community fails to ensure world peace and security. However, this right has fully grown and shaped itself as a legal instrument since the prohibition of the threat and use of force in inter-State relations (Dinstein, 2005;Sierpinski, 2006).…”

“…However, this right has fully grown and shaped itself as a legal instrument since the prohibition of the threat and use of force in inter-State relations (Dinstein, 2005;Sierpinski, 2006). In fact, States almost invariably invoke the right of self-defence when they use armed force in their international relations.…”

Obama’s Dual Discourse on American Exceptionalism

“…It is, however, interesting to see how it fits into the international legal framework. There is a consensus (Bredford and Posner would say it was the core of international law) in the international legal doctrine that the use of force is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter 3 and customary international law, although there are (at least) two exceptions to this prohibition: the authorisation of the use of force by the UN Security Council by Article 42 of the UN Charter 4 and self-defence in accordance with Article 51 5 of the same legal instrument (Gray 2008;Dinstein 2011, Corten 2011. Nevertheless, there are fierce debates not only about the interpretation of these articles, but also about other possible 3 Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".…”