Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence pp 281–288Cite as

The Legality of Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1426 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter summarizes the findings of Parts I and II on the temporal dimension of self-defence and draws conclusions as to the legality of anticipatory action on that basis. After a succinct reiteration of the approaches taken by the main opinion groups as to the temporality of self-defence, the present argument will be placed in the greater context of that debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See supra 1.3.2.

  2. 2.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 265; Simma 1995, p. 663; Neff 2005, pp. 316–317; Dixon 2000, p. 297.

  3. 3.

    See supra 1.2.

  4. 4.

    See supra 2.4.4. Grotius 1964, Book II, Chap. 1 (xvi), p. 184. See also supra 3.3 and 4.7.

  5. 5.

    See supra 2.5. Gratian, question I, in Reichberg et al. 2006, pp. 109–110; Aquinas, question 41, article 1, in Reichberg et al. 2006, pp. 182–183; Pisan, Part III, Chap. 12, in Reichberg et al. 2006, p. 219.

  6. 6.

    Gentili 1933, Book I, Chap. 14, p. 66.

  7. 7.

    See supra 6.2–6.4.

  8. 8.

    See supra 5.4 and 6.5.

  9. 9.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189.

  10. 10.

    Waldock 1952, p. 464.

  11. 11.

    Remarks also made supra 2.5, 3.2.2.1, and 6.5.

  12. 12.

    See supra 6.5.

  13. 13.

    Abi Saab 1987, p. 371; Brownlie 1963, p. 275; Cahier 1985, p. 73; Christakis 2005, pp. 208–212; Constantinou 2000, pp. 120–121; Corten 2008, pp. 619–624; Gray 2004, p. 98; Jessup 1948, p. 166; Kolesnik 1989, p. 154; Kunz 1947, pp. 877–878; Lachs 1980, pp. 162–164; Ruys 2010, pp. 259–262; Wright 1963, pp. 560–561. This view was also maintained by Franck, although he belongs to the legal doctrine that accepts the legality of anticipatory action in self-defence under certain circumstances. Franck 2002, p. 50.

  14. 14.

    See supra 11.2.1. Summary Record of the 1627th ILC mtg., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 (Lachs 1980) para 3 (comment by Tsuruoka).

  15. 15.

    Christakis 2005, pp. 215–219; Corten 2008, pp. 630–631; Gazzini 2005, p. 151; Gray 2004, pp. 98–99, 130.

  16. 16.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 260; Gray 2004, p. 130; Henkin 1995, pp.121–122.

  17. 17.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 260; Gray 2004, pp. 98, 130; Zoller 2004, pp. 333–337.

  18. 18.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Higgins 1963, p. 199; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–236; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152; Schwebel 1972, p. 481; Waldock 1952, pp. 497–499.

  19. 19.

    Bowett 1958, p. 188; Dixon 2000, p. 301; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 234–235; Waldock 1952, p. 497.

  20. 20.

    Higgins 1963, p. 199; Waldock 1952, p. 497.

  21. 21.

    Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Franck 2002, pp. 107–108; Higgins 1963, pp. 199-203.

  22. 22.

    Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, p. 238; McDougal 1963, p. 601; Schwebel 1972, p. 481.

  23. 23.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 257–261; Christakis 2005, pp. 201–207; Gray 2004, p. 98.

  24. 24.

    See supra 6.1–6.3.

  25. 25.

    See supra 2.4.4 and 3.1.3. Gentili 1933, Book I, Chap. 14, p. 61; Vattel 1964, Book III, Chap. 3, Section 42, p. 248.

  26. 26.

    See supra 4.7 and 5.4.

  27. 27.

    See supra 6.2 and 6.4.1.

  28. 28.

    For the expressed intention of some of the US delegates at the San Francisco Conference to limit self-defence to the time after an armed attack occurred, see supra 5.3. See also: Franck 2002, p. 50; Ruys 2010, p. 260.

  29. 29.

    See supra 5.3. Minutes of the Forty-eighth meeting (Executive Session) of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, 20 May 1945, in Foreign Relations of the US Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1945, vol. 1, p. 818; Minutes of the Thirty-eighth meeting of the United States Delegation, Held at San Francisco, 14 May Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1945, in ibid., pp. 707–709.

  30. 30.

    See supra 5.3.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See supra 11.2.1. Summary Record of the 1627th ILC mtg., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 (Lachs 1980) para 3 (comment by Tsuruoka).

References

  • Abi Saab G (1987) Cours general du droit public. Recueil des Cours 207(VII):9–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett DW (1958) Self-defense in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by states. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahier P (1985) Changements et continuité du droit international: cours général de droit international public. Recueil des Cours 195(VI):9–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2005) Existe-t-il un droit de légitime défense en cas de simple “menace”?: une réponse “groupe des personnalités de haut niveau” au de l’ONU. In: Société française pour le droit international, Les métamorphoses de la sécurité collective: droit, pratique et enjeux stratégiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 197–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou A (2000) The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Sakkoulas, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2008) Le droit contre la guerre: l’interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon M (2000) Textbook on international law. Blackstone Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck D (1988) Rules of engagement for maritime forces and the limitation of the use of force under the UN Charter. Ger Yearb Int Law 31:165–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers 1945, vol 1: General (1967). US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (2002) Recourse to force: state action against threats and armed attacks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2005) The changing rules on the use of force in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentili A (1933) De jure belli libri tres (trans: Rolfe JC). Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2004) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius H (1964) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (trans: Kelsey FW). Oceana, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1995) International law: politics and values. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1963) The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup PC (1948) A modern law of nations: an introduction. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolesnik DN (1989) The development of the right to self-defence. In: Butler WE (ed) The non-use of force in international law. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 153–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz J (1947) Individual and collective self-defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the UN. Am J Int Law 41:872–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachs M (1980) The development and general trends of international law in our time. Recueil des Cours 169(IV):9–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1987) Countermeasures and self-defence as circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the International Law Commision’s Draft Articles on States Responsibility. In: Spinedi M, Simma B (eds) United Nations Codification of State responsibility. Oceana, New York, pp 197–286

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS (1963) The Soviet-Cuban quarantine and self-defense. Am J Int Law 57:597–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Feliciano FP (1961) Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff SC (2005) War and the law of nations: general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambrdige

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reichberg GM, Syse H, Begby E (eds) (2006) The ethics of war: classic and contemporary readings. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2010) ‘Armed attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1991) International law in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel SM (1972) Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law. Recueil des Cours 136(II):411–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (ed) (1995) The Charter of the United Nations, a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vattel E (1964) The law of nations or the principles of natural law: applied to the conduct and to the affairs of nations and of sovereigns. Oceana, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock CHM (1952) The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law. Recueil Des Cours 81(II):451–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright Q (1963) The Cuban quarantine. Am J Int Law 57:546–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller E (2004) The law applicable to the preemption doctrine. Am Soc Int Law Proc 98:333–337

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forum for the Law of Armed Conflict and Peace Operations, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kinga Tibori Szabó (Researcher)

Authors
  1. Kinga Tibori Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szabó, K.T. (2011). The Legality of Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation