![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Use of force in international law be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There's a reference to "threat" in the quoted Article 24 and I'd like some explanation as to how it's meant to be interpreted. For example, both Israel and the United States have made repeated explicit threats to attack Iran, not on the basis of the latter's use of force, but on the basis of, usually, their production of a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Iran has made similar claims that it would use force, but only in self-defence after an attack has occurred. Do either or both of these constitute an illegal threat, and why or why not? -- Jammoe ( talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Legally speaking, I'm not sure if anyone really made a threat of the use force as defined in article 2(4). There are few definition of what constitutes a threat in this context (if you want to make up your mind read up the case Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1]) However, addressing your point on self-defense. If a state uses force in self-defense as defined by customary international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter [2] limits the applicability article 2(4). So if a state threatens the use of force within its right of self-defense, article 2(4) is not applicable. Therefore it is not an illegal threat. The US and Israel could argue that they are within their customary rights of self-defense to use force against Iran if and only if Iran is building weapons of mass destruction. Then any threat of the use of force is legal. However, this alleged right of pre-emptive / anticipatory self-defense is very controversial. [3]
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Use of force by states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Use of force in international law. There was clear consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory. Many alternatives were discussed, but Walrasiad's suggestion is the one that ultimately gained consensus. Participants did not explicitly indicate what they wished to happen to the basename, but the reasons given for the move suggest it may not be appropriate as a redirect to this article, so I'm going to leave it as a red link. No prejudice against someone recreating it as a disambiguation page or redirect. Colin M ( talk) 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Use of force by states →
Aggression in international law – The current title is really misleading. Yes, the UN charter refers to the use of force, but "use of force by states" could also refer to many domestic state actions, such as for example arrests, deportation, police brutality, etc. A synonym for use of force in international law is act of aggression or armed attack (see Sayapin, Sergey (2014). "Elements of an Act of Aggression: An Overview of Modern International Law and Practice". The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State.
T.M.C. Asser Press.
ISBN
978-90-6704-927-6.), either of which would make it clearer what the article is about. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 17:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)— Relisting.
Spekkios (
talk)
03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Use of force in international law be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
There's a reference to "threat" in the quoted Article 24 and I'd like some explanation as to how it's meant to be interpreted. For example, both Israel and the United States have made repeated explicit threats to attack Iran, not on the basis of the latter's use of force, but on the basis of, usually, their production of a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Iran has made similar claims that it would use force, but only in self-defence after an attack has occurred. Do either or both of these constitute an illegal threat, and why or why not? -- Jammoe ( talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Legally speaking, I'm not sure if anyone really made a threat of the use force as defined in article 2(4). There are few definition of what constitutes a threat in this context (if you want to make up your mind read up the case Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1]) However, addressing your point on self-defense. If a state uses force in self-defense as defined by customary international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter [2] limits the applicability article 2(4). So if a state threatens the use of force within its right of self-defense, article 2(4) is not applicable. Therefore it is not an illegal threat. The US and Israel could argue that they are within their customary rights of self-defense to use force against Iran if and only if Iran is building weapons of mass destruction. Then any threat of the use of force is legal. However, this alleged right of pre-emptive / anticipatory self-defense is very controversial. [3]
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Use of force by states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Use of force in international law. There was clear consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory. Many alternatives were discussed, but Walrasiad's suggestion is the one that ultimately gained consensus. Participants did not explicitly indicate what they wished to happen to the basename, but the reasons given for the move suggest it may not be appropriate as a redirect to this article, so I'm going to leave it as a red link. No prejudice against someone recreating it as a disambiguation page or redirect. Colin M ( talk) 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Use of force by states →
Aggression in international law – The current title is really misleading. Yes, the UN charter refers to the use of force, but "use of force by states" could also refer to many domestic state actions, such as for example arrests, deportation, police brutality, etc. A synonym for use of force in international law is act of aggression or armed attack (see Sayapin, Sergey (2014). "Elements of an Act of Aggression: An Overview of Modern International Law and Practice". The Crime of Aggression in International Criminal Law: Historical Development, Comparative Analysis and Present State.
T.M.C. Asser Press.
ISBN
978-90-6704-927-6.), either of which would make it clearer what the article is about. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 17:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)— Relisting.
Spekkios (
talk)
03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)