engleski

Challenges to the Prohibition of the Use of Force in International Relations

In the past, waging war was considered to be an expression of each state’s sovereignty. Using armed force against another state was a legitimate means of acquiring one’s own interests. For this reason, outlawing war and other forms of the use of force has for a long time been outside of the scope of international law regulations. Over the time, the consciousness of the unacceptability of using force as a means of inter – state discourse has resulted in attempts to promote peaceful means of resolving disputes and to outlaw the use of force. When the United Nations Charter, which outlawed the use of force except in exceptional circumstances provided by the Charter itself, was adopted, it was seen as an efficient mechanism of providing peace in the world. However, aggressions and other instances of unlawful use of force did not cease to take place. Moreover, some new dangers, particularly international terrorism, intensified. When responding to traditional, as well as new threats, States occasionally found themselves in situations in which they had to choose between what was legally permitted and what was illegal but possibly justifiable. On one hand, law should with no doubt be respected. On the other, if abiding by the law too strictly leads to illogical results, wrongfulness of some illegal acts might under certain circumstances be precluded. Great caution is nevertheless necessary, because misusing the exceptions to the use of force (primarily self – defense), as well as misusing invocation of the circumstances precluding wrongfulness, might bring us back to ancient times, when there was practically no ban on inter – state violence.

Use of force; self-defence; humanitarian intervention

nije evidentirano