Frameworks of International and European Law

This article discusses the history of the conflict between the USA and North Korea, including the development of nuclear weapons and the war of words between Trump and Kim. It also explores the use of force in international law.

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Frameworks of International and European Law
Name
Professor
Institution
Course
Date
1

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Introduction
Donald Trump made a very bombastic speech to the delegates of the United State. The main
agenda was to pay much attention to the North Korea which had was looming on the nuclear
attack. The country new the powers of United State but they turned a deaf ear. Donald Trump
said the state had great strength and enough patience waiting for the Kim who had promised a
bloody attack in the USA.1 Trump said that the rocket man was in a big problem since nothing he
could do together whether his country. He said the USA had no choice to argue with Korean
government but to officially destroy and dismantle it fully. By describing Kim as the Rocket man
reveals that the Korean country is in the big mess in manufacturing the dangerous weapons.2
Trump said that no single nation neither no one is supposed to conduct the criminal affairs in the
manufacturing of weapons and missiles. This is a dangerous business in the entire world. During
the meeting, the North Koreas ambassador left the hall and his seat remained empty throughout
the entire speech of the president to the USA delegates.
The speech of the president basically indicates how use has been in the position to use force in
different fields. First and foremost there is the issue of Iran Venezuela which has been relevant to
the speech.3 The president was harsh on commenting to the state of Iran. He described the
government as so corruptly and full of dictatorship practices which emphasized on false guise for
1 Arend AC, Beck RJ. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm. (Routledge; New York:Amacom 2014).
2 Bennett, Bruce W. Preparing for the possibility of a North Korean collapse (Rand Corporation, 2013).
3 Bin, Yu. "What China Learned from Its Forgotten War in Korea." Chinese War Fighting (2016): 123-142.
2

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
democracy in the entire nations. Trump indicated that the country has been characterized with
depleted economy whereby the only product it can exports it's the violence bloodshed and the
chaos.4 The president went on and indicated that Iran country has been funding different
hooligans whose purpose is to ruthlessly kill innocent Muslims and attack the innocent Arabs
and other neighbours. It was unfair for the USA country to watch the nations being disturbed by
a few groups. Trump indicated that use of dangerous weapons such as the missiles cannot and
will never bring peace at all.5
History on the USA and North Korea.
The war of words between the USA president and North Korea president Kim Jong sparked a lot
of fear between the two nations. This was so serious to the extent it spilled into the use of
military strengths for the confrontation between the two nations. The disagreement was solved
amicably this year after there was a serious meeting between the two leaders who agreed to come
together and stop the war.6 They indicated that sanctions and use of missiles were not a good
character for the two nations. The questions which raised from this meeting were all leaders
thinking for the peace settlement. The gap remained whereby there were a lot of puzzles on how
come Trump after all those threats to destroy Korea stopped immediately. In this section, it's
good to look at the history between the two nations. The history starts from the point at which
4 Blasko, Dennis J. The Chinese army today: tradition and transformation for the 21st century(Routledge, 2013).
5 Breen M. Kim Jong-Il, Revised and Updated: Kim Jong-il: North Korea? s Dear Leader (3rd Edn, Oxford University Press, 2012).
6 Buergenthal T, Murphy S. Buergenthal and Murphy's Public International Law in a Nutshell, (2013) new York 5th. West Academic.
3

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
North Korea started developing the harmful nuclear and missile groups all the way to the
measures taken by the president Trump to stop them.7
The early ambitions
Different authors have indicated that North Korea quest for the missile and harmful weapons can
be traced back for the last 90 years. This was evident during the Korean War. At this time the
nation thought it was good for it to develop harmful weapons that could assist in deterring
attacks from the USA.Back in 1950 different leaders such as President Harry indicated that it
was convenient to use atomic bomb at that time. 8The issue was to protect the resources and
other key aspects in the country from defending enemies in various parts of the world. Since the
time North Korea believed that Washington will attack at any time thus need to invest more in
producing war weapons of high quality.
With increased knowledge of manufacturing of powerful, North Korea developed a positive
attitude and thus embracing on active consideration.9 The aspect of active consideration
motivated North Korea to produce weapons since they knew that Washington will attack them in
the future. Therefore coming up with an apt alternative which was to design an atomic bomb.
Some of the processes which determined the use of harmful weapons were;
7 Chesterman, Simon. "“Leading from Behind”: The Responsibility to Protect, the Obama Doctrine, and Humanitarian Intervention after
Libya." Ethics & International Affairs 25, no. 3 (2011): pp 279.
8 Dunne, Matthew. A Cold War state of mind: Brainwashing and postwar American society (University of Massachusetts Press, 2013).
9 Fahy, Sandra. Marching through suffering: Loss and survival in North Korea (Columbia University Press, 2015).
4

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
The 1994-2001 Clinton made a deal. The aim was to develop a reprocess fuel rods that
emphasized on clearing a reactor. North Korea was in the position to develop platinized
weapons. During October in the year 1994, USA intervened the production of weapons in Korea.
The North Korea nations agreed to surrender their weapons and also stop production of atomic
bombs thus enhancing a positive relationship with the USA. They were promised a lot by the
USA.North Korea was to get the shipments of fuel oil and other assistance from the USA. The
Korean agreed to comply with the deal since they were in much need for the positive relationship
with the USA whom they believed were the close customers for the weapons.10
The closing of the 2001-2003 framework.
This time was, marked by President George W.Bush.At this period Bush referred to North Korea
as an evil country.11 That is the North Korea instead of looking something worthy were there
arranging for wars and designing explosives such as atomic bombs. Different experts have
indicated that this time there was a small relationship between USA and Korea. This was because
that North Korea was ringing themselves with the uranium deposits whose claim was denied by
Pyongyang.
The 2003 six-party talks on the two companies.
The period argues on the talks which were agreed and signed the joint statement in 2006. This
time North Korea again agreed to surrender its sophisticated weapons. The two nations signed
10 Feng, Zhu. "China’s North Korean liability." Foreign Affairs 16 (2017).
11 Gray C. International law and the use of force (2013) Oxford University Press.
5

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
the Non-proliferation Treaty and thus accepting on the IAEA inspections. This enhanced the
right to the peaceful nuclear energy.12
The development of the first nuclear test in the USA. This occurred in 2006 where the situation
had reached a dangerous part. North Korea started their manufacturing plants and this time the
rate of production of powerful weapons especially their atomic bombs. The USA responded with
an immediate effect whereby it demanded Koreans to abandon the business on use of nuclear
weapons. Some expert indicated that the missile was definitely prepared to the USA only. The
manufacturing recon structuring was assisted by President Bush. The president was accused of
revealing essential information to their enemies. This was contrary wrong and now the country
started formulating apt methods.
The second nuclear which occurred in 2009.
This period was marked by the rule of Barrack Obama. He started by warning those leaders who
wanted to start the war. He indicated that the USA will have to extend its hands in handling the
war crisis. After 3 months then Korea launched an Unha rocket which was highly manufactured
comprising a satellite in the space. This violated the treaty which they made in 2004.
Unfortunately, the launch failed since it was not in the position to send signals appropriately.
Pyongyang now decided to violate the agreements from the six-party talks. He went on and
threatened to reactivate the nuclear system by that the president in the USA was unhappy after
the mission failed and therefore he ordered the IAEA inspectors out of the country. After one
month that s on May 24 then Korea went and produced an underground nuclear test. The gadget
12 Williamson M. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001 (London edition 2016).
6

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
was to control the science and technological problem at that merit also signified a sense of power
in manufacturing weapons.
The testing accelerates in 2016.
This period was marked by the Kim Jong. North Korea continued to launch a space. This time
also marked the launching of the missile failed until on the December when the launching now
succeeded. This time they launched a system of Unha that was big in size. Kim at this time came
up with another idea on conquering different countries by use of the military.13 The missile
program was directed to USA, South Korea, and Japan. Kim targeted these countries.
The war of words between Kim and trump.
This occurred in 2017. North Korea reached the final milestones. It was recorded to have
produced more than 250 Kilotons of missiles. At September the test was done Korea had the
most powerful nuclear test.14 When Trump was addressing he referred Kim as the rocket mink
had invested a lot in preparing the weapons. North Korea nations bragged on their power but
later on, they got a warning whereby the USA was ready to fight with them. 15Trump said that
North Korea was n a big mess that's North Korea president was referred to as person n suicidal
mission together with his regime. Kim was dissatisfied with what Trump said to him.
13Farwell, James P., and Rafal Rohozinski. "Stuxnet and the future of cyber war." Survival 53, no. 1 (2011): pp 23.
14 Hastings, Max. The Korean War. Pan Macmillan (London 2012).
15 Hanham, Melissa, and Seiyeon Ji. "Advances in North Korea’s Missile Program and What Comes Next." Arms Control Association 1
(2017).Academy of law review.
7

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
The talk comes in the midst of endeavors by the US to apply more global weight on North Korea
to withdraw from its atomic desire and rocket dispatches. 16In a far-reaching discourse, Mr.
Trump underscored the power and national personal circumstance as the reason for worldwide
participation and said nations must regard both their very own kin and also different countries,
spotlighting Ukraine, South China Ocean, Iran, and uncontrolled relocation. "We don't anticipate
that different nations will have a similar culture, customs or even frameworks of government,"
he stated, however, included the US expects countries to maintain the interests of their own kin
and the privileges of each other sovereign individuals.17 Amid the discourse, Mr. Trump
scrutinized the Iran atomic arrangement — which his organization has compromised to tear up
— calling it "one of the most exceedingly bad and most uneven exchanges". What's more, he
additionally accepted the open door to tout the US' work close by its partners "to pound the
washout psychological oppressors." Picture source: Getty Get cautions on US remote approach
when another story is distributed.
Many "specialists" expel or think little of this danger. U.S. knowledge did too as of not long
ago.Before long, North Korea will have the capacity to compromise or battle a certain warfare
event by high utilization of various existing atomic weapons. All citizens will be forced to have
the ultimate capacity to stay comfortably with them and take them as part of their day to day
16 Kelsen, Hans. "Collective security and collective self-defense under the Charter of the United Nations." In The Use of Force in International
Law, (2017) pp.45.
17 Kihl, Young Whan, and Hong Nack Kim. North Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival: The Politics of Regime Survival (Cambridge
University Press, 2014).
8

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
lives. This is similar to the way various countries, for example, Russia and China and also those
individuals' states with the capability of having atomic bomb plants18
After the 2nd global war became extinct in those years, various atomic weapons have been
completely overused or utilized in serving only just as guarded weapon strategies and not to be
used to harm any particular state in the world. These specific armories or weapons fill in just as
obstacles to other existing people in the society and not acting as hostile weapons by any of the
available state or nation which is mainly aimed at accepting mishaps or erroneous conclusions. 19
The existing past Korean clash that happened in the early 1950s did not end quite in a formal
manner as previously expected or vitally anticipated by every individual.20 In this case, it ended
up with an immense tremendous truce that caused several years of undue restlessness, quietness
with huge danger episodes of viciousness.
In the meantime, South Korea wound up equitable and the world's tenth biggest economy. North
Korea, then again — a devastated Socialist line — is on the third era of Kim's. Numerous
specialists trust that Kim Jong-un is really sane and is utilizing his atomic weapons store as an
impediment, realizing that starting an atomic assault would add up to suicide because the U.S.
18 Kroenig, Matthew. "The Case for Trump's Foreign Policy: The Right People, the Right Positions." Foreign Aff. 96 (2017): 30.American press
19 Lewis, Adrian R. The American culture of war: A history of US military force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom ( Routledge
Press, 2013).
20 Lin HS. Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Pol'y. 2010;pp 4:63.
9

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
will have no choice but to strike back in kind.21 Conversely North Korea, accordingly, is much
the same as some other atomic furnished express, these specialists fight.
The U.S. government, then again, has distinctive thoughts. These us citizens literally contend the
fact that the aims of people of North Korea are never highly caused nor fixated but are usually in
a terrific hostile manner.22 In addition, these objectives have strategic long-term goals of
removing or sending away united state control and occupants from southern Korea in a bid to
offer an act of togetherness with them and their prevailing terms. Immediately after that, they
will have to coerce or extort payments from those individuals' states with whom they perceive
various complaints or conflict.
Various resistance experts that extremely vouched for the complete revival or amendment of the
parliamentary council of Canada in the prevailing years 2017 argue that the state of Canada has
the capability to protect its people, property and itself from physical assaults of President Kim.
Therefore in spite of the current dangers at hand, the United States should be prepared and take
care. Furthermore together with its close partners, there is an ultimate need to take into account a
resumption procedure of the current southern Korea warfare event in order to have an end goal of
denuclearizing its promontory. This is meant to take the high-level precaution of security matters
and issues of security in preventing the core consequences and impacts of war.
21 Magill, Kevin, Diana Pritchard, Chris Rhodes, and Hazel Smith, eds. North Korea in the new world order (Springer, 2016).
22 Moellendorf, Darrel. Cosmopolitan justice (8th edition 2018).
10

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
There also exist a particular concise window of approximately 12 months in which partners
acquire "great" military choices — which means alternatives that would not result in worldwide
mass decimation — to for all time wipe out North Korea's atomic arms stockpile. 23From that
point onward, the country's nukes might be too expansive and refined.
The immense military choices should conform to worldwide traditions on the genuine utilization
of power — particularly, this should serve as the final option after all other tranquil modes and
means have fizzled. 24
Power utilized ought to likewise be proportionate, and in a perfect world the base important.
Remedies
Limit harm or lower the damage expected
The United States has dire obligations regarding the rule and principles of law, tradition and
thought in order to ensure active partners and limit inadvertent blow-back to the available two
partners and belligerents.
While accuracy weapons can confine harm, the actual amount of Kim's targets implies that
guaranteed pulverization will be troublesome and also problematic.Thus use of extremely fewer
yield bombs be deemed as the vital stable methods for specific focuses on whose declamation
should be accomplished and done with much assurance and take effect immediately.
23 Pollack, Jonathan D. No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. (8th Edn, Routledge Press, 2017).
24 Rennack, Dianne E. North Korea: Legislative Basis for US Economic Sanctions (DIANE Publishing, 2015).
11

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
The intersection or crossing the atomic limit is a major choice, made more troublesome on the
grounds that the universal law meaning of WMDs, as a matter of course, characterizes every
single atomic unstable as WMDs, paying little mind to their real impact.
North Korea has communicated no shame about intersection the atomic limit. 25It has clarified its
expectation to do as such either unsuspecting or stricken.Similarly, the nation's aim to test and
alternate existing conditions with hostile utilization of atomic bombs is very much recorded.
On the other hand, again, the courtiers China, Russia, and the United States., have truly acquired
many reservations about intersection regarding the atomic limit dreading its expected happening
which would prompt anticipated atomic war; regardless of the precautions that they continuously
undertake.
There is much uncertainty that both Russian countries and Chinese utilize the atomic weapons
that they own with an aim to store or guard North Korea. However, in the case of having a
contentious matter beforehand, there will be much likelihood that US utilization of its atomic
weapons will lead to common obliteration. Despite what might be expected, it might keep North
Korea from utilizing its own atomic weapons.
The way things are, there will be no doubt that it would utilize atomic explosives in order to
counter or prevent the dangers of the effective north Korea atomic weapons from landing on its
soil which can lead to long-term negative impacts.
25 Rennack, Dianne E. North Korea: Legislative Basis for US Economic Sanctions (DIANE Publishing, 2015).
12

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
The only military option that will be left is the correct, selective and constrain the use of nuclear
explosions on troublesome North Korea expected targets. Consequently, this can high protect a
huge mass of people and lower the number of mass casualties and survivors in all the countries
targeted.
If used in the proper manner, the available nuclear explosives can cause a lower level of
radioactive effects or reduce long-term contaminations and minimizes a lot of destructions.
These are little effects or impacts than if North Korea state had indeed detonated their existing
crude and very dangerous nuclear explosives26
The implications of making a decision and opting to use of military options on this particular
country that include the nuclear warheads ought to have effects on Kim's regime. The other allies
such as China and Russia have made an assumption that's the United Nations is just issuing
empty threats and high level of bluffing. Realistic evaluations and research indicate that it is
much vulnerable to U.S power and authority since America is highly determined to work hard in
order to de-nuclearize North Korea. This, therefore, calls on the need to negotiate before the
matter gets out of hand and brings long-term consequences.
In any case, reasonable appraisals of North Korea's helplessness to American power and
assurance to de-nuclearize the Korean Landmass could convey them to the arranging table before
it's past the point of no return.
26 Ruys T. The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2
(4)?. American Journal of International Law. 2014 Apr;108(2):159-210.
13

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
This bigot folklore and faith in the extraordinary status of the Mount Paektu bloodline
characterizes North Korea and delineates how impossible it is that political weight will ever
convince the present Dear Pioneer to withdraw. At this moment the best seek after shielding the
nation from turning into an operational atomic power rests, as it long has, with China, which
could conceivably have enough financial use to impact Kim's strategy making—and which
likewise may not especially need to do as such, since having a well-disposed neighbor raising
hell for Washington and Seoul serves Beijing's interests pleasantly now and again.
American harm has likely assumed a job in Pyongyang's string of fizzled rocket dispatches
lately. As indicated by David E. Sanger and William J. Wide of The New York Times, as the
U.S. proceeded with its clandestine cyber program a year ago, 88 percent of North Korea's flight
trial of its middle range Musudan rockets finished in disappointment.27 Given that these rockets
commonly detonated, here and there disseminating in pieces into the ocean, deciding the exact
reason—especially for specialists outside North Korea—is unthinkable. Disappointment is a
major piece of rocket advancement, and rockets can explode without anyone else for a lot of
reasons, yet the level of disappointments surely recommends attack. The ordinary
disappointment rate for formative rocket tests, as indicated by The Occasions, is around 5 to 10
percent. It's likewise conceivable that the harm program isn't PC related; it may, for example,
include more antiquated strategies, for example, nourishing flawed parts into the rockets'
inventory network. On the off chance that damage of any sort is behind the disappointments,
nonetheless, nobody anticipates that it will accomplish more than moderate advancement.
27 Stueck, William. Rethinking the Korean War: A new diplomatic and strategic history (Princeton University Press, 2013).
14

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Indeed, even fizzled tests draw Pyongyang nearer to its reported objective: having atomic
weapons equipped for hitting U.S. urban communities.
Kim's routine might be underhanded and deceived,
From these discussions, I discovered that the U.S. has four expansive key alternatives for
managing North Korea and its expanding atomic program.
1. Avoidance/prevention: A devastating U.S. military strike to wipe out Pyongyang's weapons
stores of mass decimation, take out its administration, and annihilate its military. It would end
North Korea's standoff with the Assembled States and South Korea, and additionally the Kim
administration, for the last time.
2. Turning the screws: A constrained traditional military assault—or more probably a
proceeding with an arrangement of such assaults—utilizing airborne and maritime resources, and
conceivably including barely focused on Unique Powers tasks. 28These would need to rebuff
enough to altogether harm North Korea's ability—however little enough to abstain from being
seen as the start of a preventive strike. The objective is to leave Kim Jong UN in power, yet
constrain him to relinquish his quest for atomic ICBMs.
3. Decapitation: Expelling Kim and his internal circle, in all probability by death, and
supplanting the authority with a more moderate routine willing to open North Korea to whatever
remains of the world.
28 Waxman MC. Cyber-attacks and the use of force: Back to the future of article 2 (4). Yale J. Int'l L.. (American publishers,2011);.
15

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
4. Acknowledgment or acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—submitting to Kim's building
up the weapons he needs while proceeding with endeavors to contain his desire.
Use of force
The United Nations charter and various international law indicate that all the existing members
should avoid excessive utilization of force an issue of threats in their existing international
relations. It should.
Any state, therefore, should not alter the political independence of others or damage the
territorial integrity. It should not interfere with the purpose of UN through use of aggression
since it involves armed forces to solve a particular problem. The United States should refrain
itself from threatening North Korea or suppressing its economic or political pressures and use of
incitement against North Korea. The use of force is highly prohibited in the European law
According to article 1 of United Nations Charter the Security Council dictates that in case the
measures prevent above need to be taken then the motive should only be to maintain peace and
order. It should be aimed at restoration of international peace and security of each individual's
countries people and its property environs. The united states should thus offer a chance for North
Korea and make informed decisions to solve the crucial matter diligently a prevent long-term
consequences. Other than using force it should opt to use negotiation skills and humanitarian
interventions to prevent an outbreak of war.
16

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
References
Arend AC, Beck RJ. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter paradigm.
(Routledge; New York:Amacom 2014).
Bennett, Bruce W. Preparing for the possibility of a North Korean collapse (Rand Corporation,
2013).
Bin, Yu. "What China Learned from Its Forgotten War in Korea." Chinese War Fighting (2016):
123-142.
17

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Blasko, Dennis J. The Chinese army today: tradition and transformation for the 21st
century(Routledge, 2013).
Breen M. Kim Jong-Il, Revised and Updated: Kim Jong-il: North Korea? s Dear Leader (3rd Edn,
Oxford University Press, 2012).
Buergenthal T, Murphy S. Buergenthal and Murphy's Public International Law in a Nutshell,
(New York 5th. West Academic 2013).
Chesterman, Simon. "“Leading from Behind”: The Responsibility to Protect, the Obama
Doctrine, and Humanitarian Intervention after Libya." Ethics & International Affairs 25, no. 3
(2011): pp 279.
Dunne, Matthew. A Cold War state of mind: Brainwashing and postwar American society
(University of Massachusetts Press, 2013).
Fahy, Sandra. Marching through suffering: Loss and survival in North Korea (Columbia
University Press, 2015).
Farwell, James P., and Rafal Rohozinski. "Stuxnet and the future of cyber war." Survival 53, no.
1 (2011): pp. 23.
Feng, Zhu. "China’s North Korean liability." Foreign Affairs 16 (2017).
Gray C. International law and the use of force (Oxford University Press 2013)
Hanham, Melissa, and Seiyeon Ji. "Advances in North Korea’s Missile Program and What
Comes Next." Arms Control Association 1 (2017).Academy of law review.
Hastings, Max. The Korean War. (Pan Macmillan London 2012).
18

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Kelsen, Hans. "Collective security and collective self-defense under the Charter of the United
Nations." In The Use of Force in International Law, (2017) pp.45
Kihl, Young Whan, and Hong Nack Kim. North Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival: The
Politics of Regime Survival (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
Kroenig, Matthew. "The Case for Trump's Foreign Policy: The Right People, the Right
Positions." Foreign Aff. (American press 2017).
Lewis, Adrian R. The American culture of war: A history of US military force from World War
II to Operation Enduring Freedom ( Routledge Press, 2013).
Lin HS. Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. J. Nat'l Sec. L. & Pol'y. 2010; pp 4:63.
Magill, Kevin, Diana Pritchard, Chris Rhodes, and Hazel Smith, eds. North Korea in the new
world order (Springer, 2016).
Moellendorf, Darrel. Cosmopolitan justice (8th edition 2018).
Pollack, Jonathan D. No exit: North Korea, nuclear weapons, and international security. (8th
Edition, Rutledge Press, 2017).
Rennack, Dianne E. North Korea: Legislative Basis for US Economic Sanctions (DIANE
Publishing, 2015).
Ruys T. The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses
of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2 (4)?. American Journal of International Law. 2014
Apr;108(2):159-210.
19

RUNNING HEADER: Frameworks of International and European Law
Stueck, William. Rethinking the Korean War: A new diplomatic and strategic history (Princeton
University Press, 2013).
Waxman MC. Cyber-attacks and the use of force: Back to the future of article 2 (4). Yale J. Int'l
L.. (American publishers,2011);.
Williamson M. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against
Afghanistan in 2001 (London edition 2016).
20