The use of force in international law and its relation

to the right of self-defence [Dr. Idris]

1. International law regulates the use of force in two

important respects. First, international rules determine
the limited circumstances in which states have a
legitimate claim to resort forceful measures. This body
of law is often referred to as jus ad bellum. Second,
international law also imposes limitations on the use of
armed force once conflict has broken out. These rules
are known as jus in bello. Attempts to regulate the use
of force have been one of the major historical
influences on the development of international law;

2. The basic position of international law in relation to the

regulation of the right to resort to force is encapsulated
in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. The UN
Charter provides a comprehensive prohibition on the
use of force as stated by the article : “All members
shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN” – the
Heart of Charter … is dead ? Who killed that?

3. Article 2(4) is a fundamental principle of the UN Charter

and has come to be accepted as a norm of customary
international law. Although it establishes a general
prohibition, it is important to note that Article 2(4) is
not an absolute prohibition on the use of force. The UN
Charter includes four principle exceptions to Article 2(4)
are : (i)Article 51 and the right of individual or collective
self-defence;
(ii)Chapter VII and the right of the Security Council to
take collective action on behalf of the member states of
the UN; (iii)Article 10,11, and 14 which incorporate a
role for the General Assembly of the UN to make
recommendation for forceful measures by UN members
against other states; and
 (iv)Article 53 which allows for regional organizations to
undertake forceful action with the prior authorization of
the SC;

4. The prohibition on the use of force has been repeatedly

reaffirmed in General Assembly resolutions (GA
resolution 1970, GA resolution 1974), ICJ decisions
(Corfu Channel Case, Tehran Hostages Case, Nicaragua
Case, the Legality of Nuclear Weapons, the Legality of
Use of Force by Nato, and others), several decisions in
juristic writings and by states. The Prohibition in Article
2(4) purports to cover all uses of force and threats to
use force.

5. The use of force by a state in self-defence has long

been regarded as a lawful under customary
international law. The Caroline (1837) is a seminal case
in this area. It recognizes the right of self-defence in
circumstances of overwhelming necessity and where
the response is proportional to threat. The case
involved the Caroline, an American ship that was used
to supply amunitions to Canadian rebels during the
Canadian rebellion of 1837. One night a British officer
ordered that the Caroline be boarded while it was
moored at Fort Schlosser, NY. The ship’s crew was
assaulted and the vessel was burnt and sent over the
Niagara Falls. The British ambassador to the US pleaded
self-defence while the US argued that self-defence may
be exercise only when the “necessity is instant,
overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no
moment for deliberation” (ie the action taken must be
the only option available in the circumstances). The
contention was accepted and reflects customary
international law to this day;
6. The ICJ desscribed Article 2(4) as representing a norm
of CIL binding on all states in the international
community, regardless of whether or not they are
members of the UN. The Court reached this conclusion
on the basis of evidence of state practice and opinio
juris in a number of key instruments that have adopted
by international community.

7. The right of self-defence is contained in Article 51 of the

UN Charter. It states that “nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the UN, until the Security Council
has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. Measures taken by
Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence
shall be immediately reported to the SC and shall not in
any way affect the authority and responsibility of the
SC under the present Charter to take at any time such
action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security;

8. The scope of the right of self-defence has been the

subject of considerable debate among jurists.
Therefore, there are narrow and broad interpretations
are described in the literatures and international
journals. Based on the narrow approach, resort ti to use
of force in self-defence is restricted to circumstances
where “an armed attack has actually occurred”. In
interpreting Article 51 narrowly, proponents of this view
consider the customary international law right of self-
defence to have been superseded by the Charther
provision. The right of pre-emptive strike or anticipatory
self-defence is therefore specifically excluded under
this approach. A narrow approach is attractive to those
concerned that a return to customary law notions of
self-defence may encourage aggression by states
 seeking to justify the use of force in self-defence where
no actual armed attact has occurred. Others contend
that such a narrow approach is unrealistic in an age
when a first strike on a state can obliterate its state’s
capacity to act in self-defence. On this point some
measures of anticipatory self-defence is permissible so
long as it is proportionate to the actual threat;

9. On the other hand, expansive view of self-defence, the

use of force is justified where any military action is
taken against a state by its enemy. This interpretation
has been used to justify pre-emptive strikes against
aggressive states that are threatening the use of force.
Israel’s use of force in the Six Day War of 1967 is a
useful example. There, Israel pointed to threatening
behaviour from neighbouring Arab states, Israel noted :
Egypt’s decision to withdraw UN emergency force from
the Sinai Peninsula, the large-scale deployment of
troops and equipment by Arab states on Israel’s border
with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, the closure by
Egypt of the Straits of Tiran to Israel’s shipping. Israel
justified its military action by suggesting that the above
acts represented the commencement of an armed
attact against the state of Israel. What about Falkland
Island Case, 9/11 incident for global war against
terrorism.

10. The key requirements for the right of self-defence is

customary international law under circumstances :
(a)armed attack against state territory;
(b)proportionality and necessity; (c)use of force in
defence; (d)report to the SC …
Review untuk UAS :

I. Pengakuan (Recognition) :

1. Pengertian (Fungsi dan Doktrin Pengakuan)

2. Pengakuan De Jure dan De Facto
3. Akibat Hukum dari Pengakuan;
4. Pengakuan Negara dan Pemerintah Baru
5. Pengakuan terhadap Insurgensi dan Beligerensi
6. Pengakuan terhadap Wilayah dan Non-Pengakuan
7. Kasus : a.l.
- Tinoco Arbitration Case (UK v. Costa Rica),
18 October 1923
- Indonesian Case 1946
- Panama Case
- ICJ East Timor Case, Portugal vs Australia, 1995
- Declaration of Independence Kosovo, ICJ Advisory
Opinion, 2010

1.Apa yang Sdr ketahui tentang pengakuan

dihubungkan dengan kasus Palestina dan Kosovo ?

II. Negara dan Kedaulatan Teritorial (State and Territorial

Sovereignty)

1. Syarat-syarat terbentuknya negara

2. Kedaulatan Negara dan Hak Berdaulat
3. Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Darat
4. Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Laut (Laut Teritorial,
Perairan Kepulauan, Perairan Pedalaman, Zona
Tambahan, Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif, Laut Lepas)
5. Ruang Udara dan Ruang Angkasa
6. Pembatasan Kedaulatan Teritorial: Imunitas
7. Kasus : a.l. Island of Palmas Case 1928
 Western Sahara Case 1975
Sipadan Ligitan Case 2002
ICJ East Timor Case, Portugal vs
Australia, 1995
Arrest Warrant Case, ICJ, 2002

2.Bagaimana Kedaulatan territorial menurut Max Huber

dalam kasus Palmas 1928?
Bagaimana kedaulatan Negara di laut dan di
udara/ruang angkasa ?

III. Jurisdiksi (Jurisdiction) :

1. Pengertian :
2. Beberapa Prinsip Jurisdiksi :
a.Jurisdiksi Teritorial
b.Jurisdiksi Nasionalitas
c.Jurisdiksi Perlindungan
d.Jurisdiksi Universal
e.Jurisdiksi berdasarkan Perjanjian Internasional
f. Jurisdiksi di Laut dan Ruang Udara/Angkasa
3. Kasus : a.l :
- Lotus Case 1927
- Eichmann Case 1961
- Pinochet Case, House of Lord, 2000
- Construction of Wall Case, ICJ Advisory Opinion,
2004 : Occupied Palestinian Territory

3. Jelaskan prinsip-prinsip jurisdiksi yang Sdr ketahui

dan bagaimana perkembangan jurisdiski universal!
Bagaimana menurut Sdr tentang kasus Perompak
Somalia, jurisdiksi apa yang berlaku?

IV. Tanggung Jawab Negara (State Responsibility)

1. Pengertian, Teori, dan Bentuk

2.Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran
Kewajiban dalam Perjanjian Internasional
 3.Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran Hukum
Internasional dan Akibat Hukumnya
4.Perkembangan Draft Articles on State
Responsibility 2001

Kasus : a.l. :
1. Chorzow Factory Case, PCIJ
2. Trail Smelter Case 1941
3. Corfu Channel Case 1949
4. Barcelona Traction Light 1970
6. Teheran Hostage Case ICJ, 1980 : Duty of State in
Omission
6. Rainbow Warrior Case (France-New Zealand
Arbitration Tribunal, 1990) : duty to punish
5. Genocide Case 2007
7. Estrella vs Uruguay, IAComHR : duty to punish

4.Jelaskan perkembangan pengaturan hukum

internasional tentang tanggung jawab Negara ! pelajari
Draft Articles on State Responsibility tahun 2001

Jelaskan kasus tentang mekanisme tanggung jawab

Negara yang Sdr ketahui

V. Suksesi Negara (State Succession)

1.Pengertian : Pelajari Konvensi Wina 1978

2.Sebab-sebab terjadinya Suksesi Negara
3.Akibat Hukum Suksesi Negara

Kasus : a.l. : East Timor Case 1999

Yugoslavia
Uni Soviet

5.Apa yang dimaksud dengan suksesi Negara ? Jelaskan

dengan disertai contoh-contohnya !

VI. Perkembangan Hukum Internasional :

1. Hukum HAM Internasional/Hukum Humaniter
Internasional :
a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
b. International Covenant on Economic,
Cultural, and Social Rights (ICECSR)1966;
c. International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR)1966
d. Konvensi-Konvensi Jenewa 1949 dan
Protokol Tambahan I+II 1977
e. Statuta Roma 1998 tentang Mahkamah
Kejahatan Internasional (ICC-International
Criminal Court): Genocide, Crimes against
Humanity, War Crimes, the Crime of
Aggreesion … the most serious crimes of
international concerns

2. Hukum Lingkungan Internasional/Hukum Nuklir

Internasional :
a. Permanent Sovereignty over Natural
Resources 1962, Res MU PBB No. 1803
b. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang
Lingkungan Hidup Manusia (UN Conference
on Human Environment) : Stockholm
Declaration 1972
c. World Charter for Nature 1982
d. Konvensi Hukum Laut (UNCLOS) 1982
e. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang
Lingkungan dan Pembangunan (UNCED)
1992:
a. Agenda 21
b. UNCBD
c. UNFCCC
 d. Rio Declaration
e. Forest Principles
Johannesburg Declaration 2002 tentang
Prinsip-Prinsip Pembangunan Berkelanjutan
(Sustainable Development)

f. Nuclear Weapon Tests in the

Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under
Water, 1963
g. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968
h. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) 1996
i. Konvensi Wina tentang Nuklir dan
Resolusi-Resolusi DK PBB

6.Apa yang Sdr ketahui perkembangan hukum

internasional mengenai hukum humaniter, HAM,
Lingkungan global, dan perdagangan internasional
?

Semua tugas dikirim ke email: idris_idris@yahoo.com