The legality of pre-emptive self-defence The Master's thesis deals with one of the key issues of current international law, the right to pre-emptive self-defence. The work is divided into six parts, including introduction, four chapters and conclusion. After an introductory part the first chapter deals with the sources of international laws regulating the right to self-defence, their system and the way in which they interact with each other. This chapter seeks to analyse the impact of those sources on the development of right to pre-emptive self-defence. The main attention is devoted to the primary and secondary sources of international law regulating the right to self-defence, such as the U.N. Charter, customary international law, the judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists. The second chapter first focuses on the concept of classical self-defence. It then goes on to examine the two traditional doctrinal approaches to the interpretation of the scope of the right to self-defence, the restrictive school of thoughts and the extensive school of thoughts. The next chapter relates to the prohibition of the use of force under international law. The last chapter first analyses the concept of pre-emptive self-defence from the...

This master thesis provides an analysis of the legality of preemptive self-defence under international law. In assessing the lawfulness of preemptive self-defence two basic sources of international law: customary and treaty law are examined. The analysis of the UN Charter rules showed that there is strong disagreement between scholars regarding the legality of anticipatory self-defence. However, the term “armed attack” in article 51 UN Charter should embrace imminent threats. Two basic reasons are: the advent of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and new methods of warfare; the inherent right of anticipatory self-defence was not exhausted after the adoption of the UN Charter. The examination of customary international law showed that the Caroline doctrine allows states to act in anticipation of an armed attack if the requirements of necessity and proportionality are fulfilled. In addition, the analysis of state practice and opinion juris prior and after September 11, 2001, revealed that anticipatory self-defence is not prohibited. The conclusion is maid that the right of anticipatory self-defence, if requirements of necessity and proportionality are fulfilled, is not illegal under international law. In contrast, the analysis of the UN Charter rules showed that preemptive self-defence against perceived threats is not legal under the UN Charter, because there is no actual armed attack or imminent threat against which state can legally defend itself. In addition, preemptive... [to full text] / Šioje magistro tezėje analizuojamas preventyviosios savigynos teisėtumo tarptautinėje teisėje klausimas. Du pagrindiniai tarptautinės teisės šaltiniai: sutarčių bei paprotinė tarptautinė teisė yra nagrinėjami siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar preventyvioji savigyna yra legali tarptautinė teisėje. Pirmoje darbo dalyje nagrinėjamas preventyviosios savigynos prieš neišvengiamas grėsmes (angl. anticipatory self-defence) legalumas dviejų pagrindinių tarptautinės teisės šaltinių atžvilgiu. Pagrindinė tarptautinė sutartis reguliuojanti karinės galios naudojimą yra Jungtinių Tautų (JT) Chartija. Nagrinėjant preventyviosios savigynos prieš neišvengiamas grėsmes legalumo JT Chartijos normų, reguliuojančių savigyną, atžvilgiu, buvo nustatyta, kad autoriai nesutaria dėl to, ar JT Chartija leidžia naudoti karinę galią prieš neišvengiamas grėsmes. Pagrindiniai mokslininkų nesutarimai kyla dėl JT Chartijos 51 straipsnio, kuris leidžia JT valstybėm narėm savigynos tikslais naudoti karinę galią, ginkluoto užpuolimo atveju, formuluotės. Iš esmės, nesutariama dėl dviejų frazių vartojamų JT Chartijos 51straipsnyje: „prigimtinė teisė“ bei „ginkluotas užpuolimas“ (angl. „the inherent right“, „armed attack“). Autorių susiskaidymas šiuo klausimu neleido nustatyti, ar preventyvioji savigyna prieš neišvengiamas grėsmes yra legali. Dėl to, buvo nagrinėjama, ar JT Chartijos 51 straipsnyje minima ginkluoto užpuolimo sąvoka apima neišvengiamas grėsmes ir tokiu būdu minėta tarptautinė sutartis leidžia... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the 'inherent right of self-defence', which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence.