Enforcing International Law Through Non Forcible Measures

1. Use of force.

This book examines the history and current status of the non-forcible counter-measure (economic sanction), and, by unraveling the legal intricacies surrounding its application, focuses upon the conditions under which states might be entitled to employ it.

Until recently, the fundamental link between two basic concepts in international law, namely the right to self-help and the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, has been neglected in doctrine and practice. The main issue is that international law traditionally recognizes the right of states to safeguard their own rights by resorting to countermeasures as well as the obligation to settle their disputes by accepted and recognized diplomatic and judicial procedures. Both concepts are based on their own merits, which are assumed to be valid in contemporary international law. It is the primary purpose of this study to determine which rules and principles govern the relationship between the two concepts. The book's major findings arise from an analysis of scholarly work, supported by examples from five different case studies. Drawing insights from legal as well as political science, it will be a valuable resource for students, academics and policy makers in international law, international relations and related areas.

1. Use of force.

The law of neutrality - the corpus of legal rules regulating the relationship between belligerents and States taking no part in hostilities - assumed its modern form in a world in which the waging of war was unconstrained. The neutral State enjoyed territorial inviolability to the extent that it adhered to the obligations attaching to its neutral status and thus the law of neutrality provided spatial parameters for the conduct of hostilities. Yet the basis on which the law of neutrality developed - the extra-legal character of war - no longer exists. Does the law of neutrality continue to survive in the modern era? If so, how has it been modified by the profound changes in the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict? This book argues that neutrality endures as a key concept of the law of armed conflict. The interaction between belligerent and nonbelligerent States continues to require legal regulation, as demonstrated by a number of recent conflicts, including the Iraq War of 2003 and the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010. By detailing the rights and duties of neutral states and demonstrating how the rules of neutrality continue to apply in modern day conflicts, this restatement of law of neutrality will be a useful guide to legal academics working on the law of armed conflict, the law on the use of force, and the history of international law, as well as for government and military lawyers seeking comprehensive guidance in this difficult area of the law.

Clearly and accessibly written, this new text provides a valuable resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students of international law and covers subjects including the history, theories and sources of international law, as well as current areas of interest such as international criminal law.

Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

This book explores the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law. It examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the increasing role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN Charter framework is under challenge. Russia's invasion of Georgia and intervention in Ukraine, the USA's military operations in Syria, and Saudi Arabia's campaign to restore the government of Yemen by force all raise questions about the law on intervention. The 'war on terror' that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA has not been won. It has spread far beyond Afghanistan: it has led to targeted killings in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, and to intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Is there an expanding right of self-defence against non-state actors? Is the use of force effective? The development of nuclear weapons by North Korea has reignited discussion about the legality of pre-emptive self-defence. The NATO-led operation in Libya increased hopes for the implementation of 'responsibility to protect', but it also provoked criticism for exceeding the Security Council's authorization of force because its outcome was regime change. UN peacekeeping faces new challenges, especially with regard to the protection of civilians, and UN forces have been given revolutionary mandates in several African states. But the 2015 report Uniting Our Strengths reaffirmed that UN peacekeeping is not suited to counter-terrorism or enforcement operations; the UN should turn to regional organizations such as the African Union as first responders in situations of ongoing armed conflict.