Use of Force in International Law: Terrorism and State Responsibility

This case study analyzes the legal aspects of the use of force in international law, particularly in the context of terrorism and state responsibility. It begins by referencing Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force, and discusses the challenges the UN faces in addressing terrorism, including the lack of universal adherence to anti-terrorist conventions and inadequate anti-money laundering measures. The study then examines the conditions under which a state can lawfully intervene in another state's affairs following an armed attack by a non-state actor, referencing the Nicaragua case and the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda case. It emphasizes that intervention is only lawful if the victim state requests assistance and cannot be based on a third state's independent assessment. The case study concludes by highlighting the importance of achieving normative strength in addressing the use of force by non-state actors, similar to that already established for state actors.

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

1INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
Table of Contents
Answer 1..........................................................................................................................................2
References........................................................................................................................................2
Answer 2..........................................................................................................................................3
References........................................................................................................................................4

2INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
Answer 1
In the context of international law and the customary international law, Article [2(4)] of
the UN Charter prohibits the use of force except under circumstances where force of serious
nature is applied in the form of armed conflict or under circumstances of terrorist attacks, civil
strife taking place in another state as was held in Nicaragua case.
The two significant challenges that the UN faces with respect to terrorism is that despite
the anti-terrorist conventions in place, several states do not become parties to such conventions
and even if they are signatories to the conventions, they fail to approve internal enforcement
measures to implement such conventions into their domestic laws. Secondly, the states lack
adequate and stringent anti-money laundering laws and technical capacity while the evasion
procedures of the terrorists groups are more advanced (Solis 2016).
Additionally, there are clear rules regulating the decision of the states to use force that is
complying with the proportionality and necessity requirement but the rules regarding application
of force by state non-actors have not been as adequate as that of the rules regarding state actors
in terms of applying force.
In order to overcome these challenges, the UN must achieve the same level of normative
strength with respect to non-state use of force as it already had with respect to use of force by the
state. While legal framework for state violation regarding use of force is stronger than in case of
non-state actors, it is politically important to achieve an inclusive convention on terrorism that
will not justify any attacks made even as self defense or humanitarian grounds if it involves
killing of civilians.
References
Republic of Nicaragua v The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1
Solis, G.D., 2016. The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge
University Press.

3INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND GLOBAL ECONOMY

4INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
Answer 2
In Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005], it was held that a armed attack may be
conducted by irregulars or armed bands.
In Nicaragua Case, a third country’s intervention into victim state shall be held as lawful if the
following elements are fulfilled.
a) the victim state must have been subjected to armed attack;
b) the state must declare itself as victim state for being subjected to armed attack;
c) the third state cannot make own assessment to intervene on grounds of exercising right of
collective self-defense;
d) the victim state must request the third country for assistance and exercising self-defense;
In the given scenario, the attack made by the terror group Alfa destroyed stock exchange of
the state of Gama resulting in mass killing. As per the definition of armed attack provided in the
Nicaragua case, the aggressor state must carry out attacks against another state (victim state).
On the facts here, the attack caused by Alfa terrorist group against Gama amounted to
armed attack. However, an intervention of Delta State shall only be held lawful if Gama seeks
assistance from Delta to exercise right to self-defense or if it declares itself as victim that has
been subjected to armed attack. The State of Delta cannot exercise rights to self-defense and
intervene based on its own assessments that Gama is a victim state as it shall be held as unlawful
under the international law.

5INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
References
Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005] ICJ reports 168
Republic of Nicaragua v The United States of America (1986) ICJ 1