Jus Ad Bellum In The Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

• Author: Brendan Ryan
• Position: BCL (Law & French) IV
• Pages: 138-151

Cork Online Law R eview 2007 12

Ryan, Jus ad Bellu m in the Israel–Hezbollah

Conflict

!

!

∀#∃

JUS AD BELLUM IN THE ISRAEL–HEZBOLLAH CONFLICT

Jus ad Bellum in Response to Non–State Aggression: Article 51, State

Responsibility & the Israel–Hezbollah Conflict, 2006

Brendan Ryan1

Liberty means responsibility. That is why mo st men dread it.

– George Bernard Shaw

A SOURCES OF THE LAW ON SELF–DEFENCE AND STATE

RESPONSIBILITY

Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations promulgates a general

prohibition on the use of force in the conduct of international affairs:

All Members sh all refrain in their internation al relations fro m the threat

or use of force against the territorial integrity or political in dependence of

any state, or in any other man ner inconsistent with the Purposes of the

United Nations.

No use of force outside of Security Council–sanctioned operations is

permissible, unless a given situation falls within the Article 51 self–defence

derogation:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of

individual or collective self–d efence if an armed attack occ urs against a

Member of the United Nation s, until the Sec urity Council has taken

measures necessary to maintain international peace and se curity.

Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self–defence

shall be immed iately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any

way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security C ouncil 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.

[Emphasis add ed.]

The UN Charter’s conception of self–defence has its genesis in the

devastation of the Second World War and was tailored to respond to state–

on–state conventional attacks. 2 It goes without saying that the current

international climate poses radically altered challenges to the security of

states. Franck, writing as early as 1970, presciently notes two emergent

phenomena in warfare which could act to neutralise a state’s ability to defend

itself adequately: namely, the paralysing effect of a ‘first–strike’ nuclear attack

and the ability of non–state organisations to execute trans–frontier acts of

war. 3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 BCL (Law & Frenc h) IV.

2 Cases & Materials on International Law, Dixon & M cCorquodale, p. 539.

3 Franck, “Who Kil led Article 2(4)?” AJIL (1972).