Use of Force and Self Defense in International Law

Running head: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Question & Answer
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Answer to question 1
Options Paper
Executive summary:
Boko Harem is a rebellion force of Nigeria that is considered as a terrorist group and
shows their muscle power to all who are not following their rules and principles of Sharia
law1. The entire group is famous for their terrorist activities and pose them as a threat to
international peace and security. However, the United Nation has taken certain measures to
fight against the use of force through different charters. This paper describes various
provisions on use of force, threat to the humanitarian ground, measures taken as self defence
and the objective of U.N. Charter.
This argument can be developed on the basis of these following facts:
The Boko Harem rebel force is one of the most notorious groups that are active in the
states like Nigeria and Africa. They have a mentality to kill people who are not abiding by
their rules. They are wanted for their anti-social activities and the Nigerian government has
no control over their acts2. To stop the anti-social movements, United Nations has taken
certain measures through the charters and according to Article 2 (4) of the charter no member
state can take any action against the interest of other state regarding any threat or use of
force3. However, it has been learnt from the study that the rebellions had kidnapped three
Australian nuns and threatened Australia to kill them. After a meeting, the Australian
government had decided to cancel the water transportation system to Nigeria and also move
1 Lister, Tim. "Boko Haram: The essence of terror." CNN. Retrieved at 13 (2014).
2 Morrison, T., et al. "Terrorist Activities and Foreign Direct Investment in selected African States (1970-
2010)." Equatorial Journal of Finance and Management Sciences 1.2 (2016): 16-29.
3 Ruys, Tom. "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 108.2 (2014): 159-210.

2PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
the Australian troops from certain parts of Nigeria. Nigerian government had criticised the
steps and stated that the step is against the policy of the UN charter.
According to many scholars, the provision of Article 2 (4) of the charter can be
interpreted as to protect the territorial integrity in between the international states4. However,
all the encompassed sections provided under the Article have certain exceptions that can be
taken by the member states to defend them against the use of force or threat. Any member
state can take the help of the measures provided under chapter VII that has been implemented
by the United Nation Security Council. However, all the provisions mentioned under Article
2 or Article 51 is not applicable in case of war.
The legal implications in this case that can be taken by the Australian government are
the interpretation of Article 2 (4) and Article 51 of the charter. It has been stated under
Article 51 of the Charter that any member state can take effective actions against any
individual or collective force for maintaining peace and security. The process under Article
51 can be taken for self defence and in case of humanitarian intervention also. Further, it has
been observed by the UN Security Council that member states can take all the preventive
measures to protect their territory or their nationality against all the force or threat. As an
example, it can be stated that the action taken by North Korea against South Korea by
withdrawing their armed force from that territory is considered as a matter of self defence.
The legal implication of resolution 1441 of Security Council that any weapon-based force
will be treated against the international peace policy and therefore, should be banned at any
cost5.
4 Arend, Anthony Clark, and Robert J. Beck. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter
paradigm. Routledge, 2014.
5 Wood, Michael. "The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions, Revisited." Max Planck Yearbook of
United Nations Law Online 20.1 (2017): 1-35.

3PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
Article 51 gives the member state an inherent right to take action for self defence and
it has also been stated that the action should not go against the mandate of the council under
the charter6. The charter provides that the member states are required to enjoy their power in
good faith. In this way, the provision of self-defence has been limited by the council. The
International Court of Justice has divided the term self defence in three parts such as
preventive, anticipatory and interventionary7. According to the brief of the case study,
Australian government can take certain measures to ensure protection to their citizens and
can take effective actions for defend them from the use of force.
Certain rights are also been imposed on the member state regarding the protection of
their nationals. Many states have their nationals who are resided in abroad. The state have
certain responsibility to them and the state must protect them at any cost. In the study, it has
been learnt that the Boko Harem rebel force had kidnapped the Australian nuns and therefore,
Australia is bound to release them from the rebellions and Australia can take certain relative
measures to ensure justice and protection to the nuns.
There are certain legal implications faced by the Australian government in this case.
The legal implications can be divided into positive and negative implications. A close
interpretation of Article 2 (4) of the charter reveals that the member state must follow the
mandates of the UN charter and should raised their voice against any unlawful force. It has
also been mentioned that the term war is not coming under the purview of this provision. The
member states are restrained to take any steps against other states that are illegal in nature and
against the moral provision of human kind. Therefore, it can be stated that the main objective
of UN for implementing the rules is to retain integrity among the member states. The positive
implication is that the possibility of rebel or illegal force will be reduced and the integrity
6 Arend, Anthony Clark, and Robert J. Beck. International law and the use of force: beyond the UN Charter
paradigm. Routledge, 2014.
7 Thirlway, Hugh. The International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, 2016.