International Relations and Global Economy

This article discusses the legality of joint strikes made by states X, Y, Z against Tarragon under the International law. It covers the principles of humanitarian intervention, self-defense, and the exceptions to Article [2(4)] of the UN Charter. The article concludes that the joint strikes were unlawful under international law.

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
International Relation and Global Economy
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
Issue
Whether the joint strikes made by states X, Y, Z against Tarragon were unlawful under the
International law
Rule
Humanitarian intervention
In the context of international law, territorial sovereignty of individual states is
considered as a fundamental principle. The concept of the territorial sovereignty has emerged
from the concept of state according to which the prevailing government is perceived as the
supreme authority within its territory without any external interference with respect to such
supremacy. The international law requires every state to respect the territorial sovereignty of
other states except under circumstances where a particular state infringes human rights or
commits human right abuses against its citizens (Dinstein 2017). Under such circumstances,
external states may intervene into the sovereignty of a particular state to safeguard the citizens on
the ground of humanitarian intervention.
Fundamental principle of International law: Article [2(4)]
The legal provision embedded in Article [2(4)] of the UN Charter prohibits the Members
of the UN from using or threatening to use force against the political independence or the
territorial integrity as well as political sovereignty of any state in any way that is contrary to the
purpose of the UN. This principle was upheld in the Congo-Uganda case. The provision set out

2INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
under Article [2(4)] of the UN Charter is considered as a crucial element of International law as
was held in the Tehran Hostages case and Nicaragua case.
Exceptions to Article [2(4)]
Self-Defence [Article 51]
The exception principle known as right to individual or collective self-defense as a
response to aggression exhibited by another state has been incorporated under Article [51] of the
Charter. The provision is subjected to an exception, which is the principle of self-defense and
the authorization of the UN to apply the force under conditions, or jus ad bellum where states are
permitted to resort to war or use armed force on humanitarian grounds to reduce sufferings in
armed conflicts. This is achieved by providing assistance and safeguarding the victims of the
armed conflicts to the extent possible.
Further, based on Chapter VII of the Charter, the UN Security Council is empowered to
decide whether collect use of force should be resorted to as a response to any act that poses a
threat to the peace or amounts to violation of peace as well as an act of aggression. Furthermore,
considering the concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ in the context of international humanitarian
law, it is already deeply-rooted in the international legal system that the international community
must not fail to take necessary measures in case of genocide and other forms of abuses of human
rights (Teson 2018).
As per the ‘responsibility to protect’ principle, states are legally obligated to safeguard
their citizens against mass atrocities and the international community must extend every possible
assistance to the states. Moreover, in the event of failing to undertake any reasonable measures,
international community becomes responsible to safeguard the concerned population from four

3INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
specific crimes namely, war crimes, crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Nevertheless, as a reasonable protective measure, application of force may be used but only as a
last resort and upon the authorization of the UN Security Council (Scott 2017). Prior to the use of
forces, it is important that the international community use humanitarian and diplomatic
measures to resolve the issue.
There is a clear distinction between jus in bello and jus ad bellum where the later seeks
to restrict the application of force apart from cases of self-protection or any decision adopted by
the Security Council. On the other hand, the former refers to a law that merely addresses the
reality of a conflict regardless of the legal reasons for resorting to application of force (Gray
2018). It deals with only that aspect of conflict that is related to a humanitarian case. The
principle of jus in bello is applicable to the war or military parties regardless of the reasons for
conflict or the justifiability of such application of force.
The concept of ‘armed attack’ was defined in the Nicargua case. In Nicargua case, the
International Court of Justice defined armed attack as an stroke by regular State armed forces
across the international border or any armed groups, mercenaries and irregular armed forces
when they are sent by or on behalf of a nation for executing an armed attack against any other
country. The attack must be so severe that it would have amounted to an armed attack if it were
executed by regular armed forces of a nation (Herman 2015).
In Nicargua case, it was held that self-defense could be collective or individual self-defense.
In order to exercise the self-defense right, the following requirements must be satisfied:
i. the state must be a victim of an armed attack;

4INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
ii. the state must affirm itself to be an injured party of an armed attack and the state that had
been subjected to the attack must assess whether such attack amounted to an armed attack
or not;
iii. the third state is not responsible for exercising a right of collective self-defense on the
basis of the self-assessment of the state;
iv. in the event of exercising collective self-defense, the victim state must request the third
state for assistance. As per the rule of the court, no third state can exercise collective self-
defense unless the victim state asks for its assistance against the armed attack;
In the context of customary international law standard, the Caroline test is conducted to
determine the validity and legality of a self-defense action. As per the Carolina test, the third
state exercising such right must apply forces that are proportionate and necessary to safeguard
the victim against the armed attacks (Scott 2017). The Carolina test or the customary
international law prohibits application of force but permits the right of self-defense under
conditions when proportionality and necessity is fulfilled and the Security Council had
undertaken every possible measure to maintain international security and peace.
Application
As per the facts of the given case, states X, Y and Z launched missile strikes on multiple
government targets in Tarragon altogether relying on the self-defense principle and on
humanitarian intervention grounds. The third countries (X, Y, Z) alleged that their attacks were
made in response to the suspected Nutmeg chemical attack resulting in numerous deaths.
The third countries initiated the attacks based on the following incidents. Tarragon has been
alleged to have been accused of using sarin gas and responsible for the chemical attacks on the

5INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
city of Cinnamon in 2013. This allegation resulted from the public declaration made by Tarragon
regarding its possession of chemical weapons. The international community has also accused the
Tarragon government for conducting several other related chemical weapon attacks.
The second incident was the Nutmeg incident that took place in 2018 where Tarragon was
alleged to have caused the incident. However, in both the incidents, it is not clearly established
that the attacks amounted to armed attacks as was defined in the Nacaragua case. The attacks
were not carried out by or on behalf of Tarragon against any other country and it had denied
about taking responsibilities for the incidents.
Further, the UN ambassador of State X stated that they would carry out the air strikes against
Tarragon as a collective self-defense. However, in the Nicaragua case, the court explained that
the right under Article [51] of the Charter, the collective self-defense right could be exercised on
fulfillment of certain requirements.
The victim states like Cinnamon and Nutmeg did not declare of being subjected to an armed
attack by the Tarragon state and that the states neither any assessment about being subjected to
armed attack. State Y itself made self-assessments regarding the country carrying out the armed
attacks. Further, as per the requirement, the third state is not supposed to initiate actions in the
form of collective self-defense based on self assessments which was exactly done by state X, Y,
Z. Lastly, the States X, Y, Z were not requested by the victim states for assistance and as the
court ruled in the Nicaragua case that it is important to request the third countries for assistance
otherwise the right to self-defense cannot be exercised.
Further, the States X, Y, Z contended that they intervened on the ground of humanitarian
ground but the actions that were undertaken as interventions were neither proportionate to the

6INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
need nor was necessary. Thus, it failed the Caroline tests as well which requires under the
customary international law, the proportionality and necessity test must be fulfilled to exercise
the principle of self-defense. The airstrikes and missiles that were made by states X, Y and Z
also led to the death of number of people, thus, failing the proportionality test. The humanitarian
ground as also failed as the consequence of their response caused devastation whereas
humanitarian interventions usually purport to reduce the sufferings of the victims.
Most importantly, besides failing the requirements set out in the Caroline tests in the context
of customary international law, the airstrikes also contravened provisions of the UN Charter as
such actions were not authorized by the Security Council. Thus, this resulted in contravention of
Article [2(4)] of the Charter that prevents states from applying force into other states on grounds
contrary to the purpose of the UN.
Conclusion
Hence, the X-Y-Z joint strikes against Tarragon were unlawful under the international
law.

7INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
References
Caroline v. United States, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 496 496 (1813)
Dinstein, Y., 2017. War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press.
Gray, C., 2018. International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press.
Herman, J., 2015. The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict.
Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1
Scott, S.V., 2017. International law in world politics: An introduction. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Solis, G.D., 2016. The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge
University Press.
Teson, F., 2018. A philosophy of international law. Routledge.