Ufasia decided to wage a holy war against the Federal States.

Ufasia decided to wage a holy war against the Federal States. The official radio of Ufasia
broadcasted that the country is going to encourage acts of violence that are carried out against the
Federal States in the part of the world. There is evidence to suggest that the Secret Service of
Ufasia is providing funds and arms to the groups that are using violent means against the Federal
States. Under these circumstances, there was a bomb blast in the capital city of Ufasia, Liguria.
This public house was frequented by the soldiers from the federal states, who were stationed in
Liguria. In this bomb blast, five soldiers of the federal states were killed. In retaliation, federal
states launched an Indian attacks against Ufasia. In these attacks, the military basis of Ufasia
were bombed and in these air raids, more than hundred civilians lost their lives. Therefore in this
case, the legality and the consequences of the actions of Ufasia, as well as the Federal States
have to be considered by using the doctrines of 'use of force', 'state responsibility' and 'reparation'
rules under the international law.
International law provides that the use of force can be lawful only if, to the extent that such use
of military force comes under the accepted exception to the general rule of recognition that has
been mentioned in the United Nations Charter. The prohibition that has been imposed on the use
of force is a basic principle of international law and it is mentioned in the UN charter. In this
regard.1 It has been mentioned in Art 2(4) that the "member states free international relations
from the threat or the use of force against the political independency or territorial integrity of any
state or in any other manner that is not consistent with the purposes of the UN".
1

Self-defense under Article 51: It is mentioned in Article 51 of UN Charter that nothing
mentioned in it is going to restrict the basic right of combined self-defense in case armed
violence takes place against any member of the UN, until necessary measures have been taken by
the UN Security Council for maintaining international peace and security. In this regard, the
measures that have been taken by the members while exercising their right of self-defense. Need
to be immediately reported to the Security Council. Similarly they shall not at all impact the
authority of UN Security Council. According to the Charter for taking any strict action at any
time as it should be essential for maintaining or restoring international peace.2
The right that has been provided by this Article is tradition as the inherent right of self-defense.
However, it is also clear that this right is not without its own limits. In order to be a valid act and
an international customary law, generally it is required that the act should conform with the
classic Caroline formula that has been provided by the US in 1873. Under this formula, it is
required that the response based on the grounds of self-defense should be necessary, immediate
and proportionate. At its creation, it was mentioned by the US that any nation which was
claiming such right is required to show the need for self-defense, instant and overwhelming, with
no choice of other means and no movement for deliberation and there should be nothing
excessive or unreasonable.3 There is no controversy that lawful self-defense needs the presence
of an armed attack. However the main controversy was regarding the point if the phrase "if an
armed attack takes place" rules out the right of self-defense before an attack has taken place or in
other words, if the international law as provided in article 51 provides an anticipated right of
self-defense to the Member states. The position adopted by the United States in this regard was
that for centuries it has been recognized by the international law that the nations we should not
2
3

suffer an attack before they are allowed by the law to take action for defending themselves
against the forces that represented an impending risk of attack. In this regard, international jurists
and legal scholars have often conditioned the legality of pre-emption on the present danger, in
most of the cases the visible mobilization of Army, Navy and Air Force becoming ready to
attack.4
For example in the present case it needs to be noted that Ufasia has clearly declared on its state
radio that it is going to encourage threats of violence that are carried out against the federal states
anywhere in the world. At the same time, evidence is also available that Secret Service agents of
Ufasia have been providing funds and arms to the groups that are working against the federal
states by using violent means.
State responsibility: It is a basic norm of the international law that "every intentionally wrong act
of a state is international responsibility of such State". The act/omission of the state will qualify
as an international wrongful act if 2 circumstances are present. First of all the act/ omission
essentially amount to a violation of a global duty or as mentioned by the articles of UN charter, it
must not be according to what is required under an international obligation. This means that the
obligation query should be obligatory on the State at the relevant time that is said to be in a
breach. The second requirement is that the act or omission needs to be attributed to such State.5
In this regard, it needs to be noted that according to the general rule, the state cannot be held
liable for the actions of private persons. Of course the state is an abstract unit, which is not able
to accomplish in a physical acts by itself. Just as the case under national law, the companies
perform through their officers or agents. In the same way, under international law, generally the
4
5