International law historically originates from the need to stabilise relations between people and states. To this day, one of its most classic functions remains ensuring the peaceful coexistence between states. Global history is featured by conflicts between states, and even today there is no shortage of disputes. Besides principles of demarcation of territories and jurisdictions between states, the international law developed a wide range of techniques to resolve conflicts. Two of the major sub-branches of international law in this context are the ius ad bellum and the ius in bello. The former is concerned with the law that governs the use of force, whereas the latter deals with the conduct of the armed conflict itself .
The legal abolishment of war was introduced by the United Nations (hereafter “UN”). Nonetheless, according to the Charter of the United Nations of 24 October 1945 (hereafter “UN Charter”), self-defence can serve as a justification for the use of force when certain conditions are met (article 51). Since the Second World War, the face of armed conflicts changed: inter-state conflicts have receded significantly in favour of new wars in which non-state actors play the leading role. Non-state actors are individuals or organisations that have a significant political influence, but are not allied to any particular state. Since the 9/11-attacks, the legality of self-defence against private violence (i.e. violence of non-state actors) has become a major question in the international ius ad bellum debate. While during the Cold War the state-paradigm dominated and states generally held on to a certain form of state involvement in case of a terrorist attack, today it seems that the international community no longer has principle objections to the exercise of self-defence against non-state actors, even if the initial attack cannot be attributed to a state. As a response to the proliferation and rise of non-state actors, attempts to stretch the limits of the definition of self-defence to include attacks by non-state actors can be witnessed. The Israel-Gaza conflict, one of the most complicated ongoing international conflicts with non-state actors, has – as a part of state practice – also contributed in the evolving standard of the right of self-defence.
Table of Contents
I Introduction
II The Concept of Self‐Defence
A Origin of the Prohibition on the Use of Force
B Principles Governing the Use of Self‐Defence
1 Procedural requirements
2 Substantive requirements
III Self‐Defence against Non‐State Actors
A The Possibility of Self‐Defence against Non-state Actors
1 Opinion of the International Court of Justice
2 State practice
B Particular Issues of Self‐Defence against Non-state Actors
1 Scale of the initial armed attack
2 Anticipatory self‐defence
3 Necessity and proportionality
IV Legality of Self-Defence in the 2014 Israel‐Gaza Conflict
A The Gaza Strip
B Historical Background of the Conflict
C Operation Protective Edge: lawful self‐defence or atrocities in Gaza?
1 Timeline of the 2014 Israel‐Gaza Conflict
2 Legality of Operation Protective Edge
V Conclusion
Research Objective and Scope
The primary objective of this research is to critically analyze the legality of Israel's military response, "Operation Protective Edge," during the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict through the lens of international law regarding self-defense against non-state actors.
- The evolution of the international legal framework concerning the use of force.
- The interpretation of self-defense as an exception to the prohibition of the use of force.
- The legal debate surrounding self-defense against non-state actors.
- The historical context and the chain of events leading to the 2014 escalation.
- The application of the requirements of necessity and proportionality to the 2014 military operations.
Excerpt from the Book
II The Concept of Self-Defence
A prohibition of force was introduced only in the beginning of the twentieth century. Until then, the use of force was seen as an aspect of state sovereignty and could be used as both a legitimate means of territorial acquisition as well as a means for a state to redress a grievance. However, the twentieth century was featured by the concept of worldwide war and the atrocities that this uncontrolled use of force could entail. This caused a global shift among nations towards an era in which the use of force should be limited.
After World War One, the League of Nations was established in 1919 and in 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact was enacted. While both initiatives pursued to encourage the state parties to resolve their disputes exclusively by peaceful means, they were also featured by certain inherent shortcomings that made it impossible to completely ban the use of force as a legal means of statecraft. Eventually the limits of both the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact became dramatically evident with the outbreak of the Second World War.
These events resulted in a global realisation that the only way to restrain the use of force in international relations in an effective way was by the creation of a new organisation which main objective was to maintain international peace of security. In this line of thinking the United Nations was established in 1945. As the constitution of the UN, the UN Charter introduced the prohibition on the use of force by states in article 2(4): “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 United Nations.” This article is considered as the cornerstone of the UN Charter.
Chapter Summaries
I Introduction: Provides the historical and legal context of the use of force, introduces the shift from inter-state conflicts to those involving non-state actors, and outlines the research structure.
II The Concept of Self‐Defence: Discusses the origins of the prohibition on the use of force, the UN Charter's stance on self-defense, and the procedural and substantive requirements for legitimate self-defense.
III Self‐Defence against Non‐State Actors: Analyzes the debate on whether non-state actors can trigger a right to self-defense, examining ICJ opinions and state practice, while detailing specific criteria for such scenarios.
IV Legality of Self-Defence in the 2014 Israel‐Gaza Conflict: Offers a background on the Gaza Strip, the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and critically evaluates the 2014 "Operation Protective Edge" against international legal standards.
V Conclusion: Summarizes findings on the evolving legal understanding of self-defense against non-state actors and reflects on the necessity of addressing root causes to achieve lasting peace.
Keywords
International Law, Self-Defence, Non-State Actors, 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict, Operation Protective Edge, Ius ad Bellum, Ius in Bello, UN Charter, Necessity, Proportionality, Armed Attack, Hamas, Israel, Middle East Conflict, Humanitarian Law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research paper?
The paper examines the legality of self-defense under international law, specifically focusing on the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict and the application of force against non-state actors like Hamas.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the historical development of the prohibition of the use of force, the legal requirements for self-defense (necessity and proportionality), and the challenges posed by conflicts with non-state entities.
What is the author's primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if Israel's "Operation Protective Edge" in 2014 constitutes a legitimate exercise of self-defense under international law or if it represents an unlawful use of force.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The work utilizes a legal-analytical method, examining international treaties, UN resolutions, ICJ jurisprudence, state practice, and academic literature to evaluate the lawfulness of military actions.
What is the focus of the main section?
The main part of the work moves from general legal theories regarding the use of force and self-defense to the specific practical application of these rules to the historical and ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza.
What are the essential keywords characterizing this study?
Major keywords include international law, self-defense, non-state actors, Operation Protective Edge, ius ad bellum, ius in bello, proportionality, and the Gaza Strip.
How does the author interpret the ICJ's role regarding non-state actors?
The author argues that the ICJ has historically emphasized state attribution, which creates challenges when applying the right of self-defense to independent actions of non-state actors.
How are the "proportionality" and "necessity" requirements applied here?
The author explains that these are not explicitly in Article 51 of the UN Charter but are vital principles of customary law, requiring that force be limited to necessary defense against an armed attack, avoiding punitive measures.
What is the conclusion regarding Operation Protective Edge?
The author highlights the complexity of the situation, noting that there are legal arguments for both sides, and concludes that a definitive assessment depends on the ongoing investigations into proportionality and collateral damage.
- Quote paper
- Elise Verdonck (Author), 2014, The 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict. Self-Defence or Atrocities in Gaza?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/284136
