2005 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Unilateral Use of Force in International Law: A Study on Just War Theories in Modern Age
| Project/Area Number |
16530031
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
International law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Ritsumeikan University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YAMAGATA Hideo Ritsumeikan University, Faculty of International Relations, Professor, 国際関係学部, 教授 (80222363)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2005
|
| Keywords | use of force / unilateralism / human security / responsibility to protect / the Charter of the United Nations / humanitarian intervention / self-defence / just war |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
After the end of the Cold-War, the international society witnesses more often cases of unilateral use of force by individual states. In 1999, NATO bombed Yugoslavia for the humanitarian purposes. After the 9.11 incident in, 2001, the United States conducted the military operation against Afghanistan, which was called "the War on Terror." In 2003, it began the Iraqi War because Iraq allegedly possessed WMDs, which have never found out yet. The "new just war theories" were advanced for these unilateral actions. One of them is "human security." It may serve against the security of state, while it may justify unilateral action for humanitarian intervention using force. A state called "failed state" which is not able to or willing to protect human rights of peoples is considered as one which cannot take "responsibility to protect." The concept of the responsibility to protect is advanced by the Canadian commission for allowing use of force by individual states in an extreme case. Now various theories supporting unilateral use of force are put forward as modern just war theories.
However the only one exception to the principle of non use of force is the right of self-defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Use of force which does not meet the requirements of self-defence can be understood as illegal action under the UN Charter. The Afghanistan case was illustrative for the justification of self-defence. The most important question is whether armed attack occurred before the right of self-defence was exercised by the United States. It must be questioned whether Afghanistan was substantially involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11. But it is not arguable that a victim state of the terrorist attack is entitled to take military operation in self-defence against another state which just gives a shelter to the terrorists, because that state is not substantially involved it the attacks.
|
