Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Defence as an Exception to the Prohibition of War

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence

  • 1220 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks at authoritative writings as well as representative instances of state practice of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in order to discern the emerging normative framework of which self-defence was a part. The aim of this chapter is to assess the way self-defence was understood during this period and whether its narrow, natural-law understanding was still accepted. The cascade of bilateral and multilateral agreements restricting or prohibiting resort to war are examined, in order to understand the role that self-defence played in this process. This chapter serves as a lead-up for the analysis of the negotiations at the UN San Francisco Conference of 1945. Conclusions are drawn on whether anticipatory action was still part of the narrow understanding of self-defence in the period leading up to the adoption of the UN Charter.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hueck 2001, p. 198; Nussbaum 1947, pp. 191–199; Steiger 2001, pp. 190–192.

  2. 2.

    For the increasing importance of arbitration in the nineteenth century, see Nussbaum 1947, pp. 212–218.

  3. 3.

    Oppenheim 1905, p. 178.

  4. 4.

    These congresses are seen today as the primary fora for the pre-First World War peace movement. The first Universal Peace Congress was held in Paris in June 1889, and meetings followed almost every year until 1913. The outbreak of the First World War postponed further congresses until 1921, when they recommenced and were held during the inter-war years. The last inter-war congress met at Zurich in August 1939, concluding their meeting four days before Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

  5. 5.

    For a succinct presentation of the peace movement, see Nussbaum 1947, pp. 221–222.

  6. 6.

    For an analysis of the Bryan treaties, see The Bryan Peace Treaties 1913, pp. 823–829.

  7. 7.

    For a detailed account on genesis of the idea of a peace conference, see Ford 1936, pp. 354–382. For a different view on the same matter, see Morrill 1974, pp. 296–313.

  8. 8.

    Participating countries: Germany, The United States of America, Austria–Hungary, Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Bulgaria.

  9. 9.

    Ford 1936, p. 378.

  10. 10.

    Oppenheim 1905, p. 178 (emphasis added).

  11. 11.

    Ibid., pp. 178–179.

  12. 12.

    Benes 1932, p. 66; Neff 2005, p. 285.

  13. 13.

    Benes 1932, p. 67.

  14. 14.

    For a detailed account of Woodrow Wilson’s role and the main forces behind the rejection of the ratification, see Walters 1965, pp. 68–72.

  15. 15.

    The 24 members included the Free French Government during the German occupation of France.

  16. 16.

    Benes 1932, p. 68.

  17. 17.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 64.

  18. 18.

    For a brief description, see Walters 1965, pp. 103–105.

  19. 19.

    For a brief description, see Walters 1965, pp. 244–246.

  20. 20.

    For the opinion expressed by an appointed Committee of Jurists as regards reprisals, see League Council meeting of 13 March 1924, p. 524.

  21. 21.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 222; Kalshoven 2005, p. 4.

  22. 22.

    Wehberg 1931, pp. 49, 92.

  23. 23.

    Wehberg 1931, pp. 10, 100–103.

  24. 24.

    Bowett 1958, p. 124.

  25. 25.

    Benes and Politis 1924, p. 483. The draft Protocol (1924) proposed sanctions against an aggressor state and provided a mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes. States had to agree to submit all disputes to the Permanent Court of International Justice, and any state refusing arbitration was to be deemed the aggressor. The protocol was rejected.

  26. 26.

    The Locarno Treaties were seven agreements negotiated at Locarno (Switzerland) in October 1925 and signed in London in December 1925 between Germany, France, Belgium, Britain, Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The particular agreement referred to in this section is the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, 16 October 1925 (hereafter, Locarno Pact 1925).

  27. 27.

    Art. 2 Locarno Pact 1925.

  28. 28.

    Ferrell 1952, p. 51.

  29. 29.

    Ferrell 1952, pp. 63–64.

  30. 30.

    On various theories on how Briand got to the idea of proposing an agreement to the US for the renunciation of war, see Butler 1939–1940, pp. 202–203.

  31. 31.

    Watkins 1932, p. 16.

  32. 32.

    Watkins 1932, p. 18.

  33. 33.

    Miller 1928, pp. 20–21, 45.

  34. 34.

    Watkins 1932, pp. 18–19.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., p. 19. As a result of Great Britain’s proviso, invitations were sent to Canada, The Irish Free State, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 20.

  37. 37.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., pp. 214, 216.

  39. 39.

    Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  40. 40.

    The initial signatories were France, US, Germany, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Irish Free State, India, Belgium, Japan, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Italy. By August 1932 47 other states signed the Pact, raising the number of parties to a total of 62. At the outbreak of the Second World War, however, the number of the parties to the Pact dropped considerably.

  41. 41.

    Watkins 1932, pp. 32–33.

  42. 42.

    Neff 2005, p. 285.

  43. 43.

    Article 2 Locarno Pact 1925. See supra 4.3.2.

  44. 44.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214.

  45. 45.

    As a result of the 1879–1884 war between Bolivia, Peru and Chile, Bolivia lost its narrow strip of coast and became landlocked. The Gran Chaco remained the only route which permitted Bolivia to reach the Atlantic coast through the Río de La Plata estuary. Bolivia and Paraguay several times attempted to agree on a frontier without success. By the late 1920s, both countries maintained several military posts in the disputed region. Farcau 1996, p. 8.

  46. 46.

    Walters 1965, pp. 527, 531–532.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp. 532–533.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 465.

  49. 49.

    Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 81; Brownlie 1963, p. 385.

  50. 50.

    Walters 1965, pp. 468–469; Brownlie 1963, p. 386.

  51. 51.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 385–386.

  52. 52.

    League Council meeting, 25 January 1932, p. 332.

  53. 53.

    Walters 1965, pp. 473–475.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., pp. 475, 479–480.

  55. 55.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 294–295.

  56. 56.

    Walters 1965, p. 491; Brownlie 1963, p. 294; Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 88.

  57. 57.

    Walters 1965, p. 492; Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 88.

  58. 58.

    Walters 1965, p. 495.

  59. 59.

    Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 92.

  60. 60.

    Bono 1937, pp. 13–14.

  61. 61.

    Walters 1965, p. 625.

  62. 62.

    The reason of French and British reluctance to refer the matter to the Council was their fear to upset Mussolini, who was believed to be willing to hold back rising Nazi aggressiveness. Walters 1965, pp. 627–629.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., pp. 634–635, 638–639.

  64. 64.

    Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 95.

  65. 65.

    Walters 1965, pp. 642–644.

  66. 66.

    Shotwell and Salvin 1949, p. 100.

  67. 67.

    Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  68. 68.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214; Art. 2 Locarno Pact 1925. See supra 4.3. Oppenheim 1905, pp. 178–179.

  69. 69.

    For a review of Anglo-French relations between 1940 and 1942 and Operation Catapult, see Tute 1989.

  70. 70.

    Lasterle 2003, pp. 837–838.

  71. 71.

    Brown 1997; Lasterle 2003, p. 837.

  72. 72.

    Brown 1997.

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Battle Summary No. 1, 3–6 July 1940.

  75. 75.

    Brown 1997; Battle Summary No. 1, 3–6 July 1940.

  76. 76.

    Gill 2007, p. 132.

  77. 77.

    Brown 1997; Battle Summary No. 1, 3–6 July 1940; Lasterle 2003, p. 836.

  78. 78.

    Lasterle 2003, pp. 840–843.

  79. 79.

    Gill 2007, p. 132; Lasterle 2003, p. 843.

  80. 80.

    Gill 2007, p. 134; Lasterle 2003, p. 838.

  81. 81.

    Lasterle 2003, p. 838.

  82. 82.

    Gill 2007, p. 132. Per a contrario, Lasterle asserts that ‘the die was already cast’ on the morning of 3 July 1940, when Churchill decided that the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir had to be destroyed. Lasterle 2003, p. 844.

  83. 83.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214; Art. 2 Locarno Pact 1925. See supra 4.3. Benes and Politis 1924, p. 483; Oppenheim 1905, pp. 178–179.

  84. 84.

    Benes and Politis 1924, p. 483 (draft Geneva Protocol, emphasis added).

  85. 85.

    June 23 Note, in Miller 1928, pp. 213–214 (emphasis added).

  86. 86.

    Oppenheim 1905, p. 178 (emphasis added).

References

  • Battle Summary No. 1: Operations against the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir, 3–6 July 1940. HMS Hood Reference Materials, Doc. AIR 234/317. http:\\www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/official/adm234/adm234–317.htm. Accessed 5 June 2009

  • Benes E (1932) The League of Nations: successes and failures. Foreign Aff 11:66–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benes E, Politis N (1924) Report on the Protocol, submitted to the Fifth Assembly. League of Nations Official Journal (Special Supp. No. 23) 483

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bono E (1937) Anno XIIII. The conquest of an empire. Cresset Press, London

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RJ (1997) Operation Catapult: Naval destruction at Mers-el-Kebir. World War II. http:\\www.historynet.com/operation-catapult-naval-destruction-at-mers-el-kebir.htm. Accessed 5 June 2009

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler NM (1939–1940) Across the busy years: recollections and reflections. Scribner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Farcau BW (1996) The Chaco war: Bolivia and Paraguay, 1932–1935. Praeger, Westport, Conn

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell RH (1952) Peace in their time: the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford TK (1936) The genesis of the first Hague Peace Conference. Polit Sci Q 51:354–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2007) The temporal dimension of self-defence. In: Schmitt M, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines. Essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 113–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hueck IJ (2001) The discipline of the history of international law: new trends and methods on the history of international law. J Hist Int Law 3:194–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F (2005) Belligerent reprisals. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasterle P (2003) Could Admiral Gensoul have averted the tragedy of Mers el-Kébir? J Military Hist 67:835–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • League Council meeting of 13 March 1924 (1924) League Nations Off. J. 5:523–529

    Google Scholar 

  • League Council meeting of 25 January 1932 (1932) League Nations Off. J. 13:326–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller DH (1928) The Peace Pact of Paris: a study of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill DL (1974) Nicholas II and the call for the First Hague Conference. J Mod Hist 46:296–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum A (1947) A concise history of the law of nations. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1905) International law: a treatise, vol 1. Longmans Green and Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotwell JT, Salvin M (1949) Lessons on security and disarmament. From the history of the League of Nations. King’s Crown Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger H (2001) From the international law of Christianity to the international law of the world citizen: reflections on the formation of epochs of the history of international law. J Hist Int Law 3:180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • The Bryan Peace Treaties—Editorial Comment (1913) American Journal of International Law 7: 823–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Tute W (1989) The reluctant enemies: the story of the last war between Britain and France, 1940–1942. Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters FP (1965) A history of the League of Nations. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins AC (1932) The Paris Pact. a textbook for schools and colleges. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster 1841: Letter from Daniel Webster, US Secretary of State, to Henry Fox, British Minister in Washington, 24 April 1841. In: British and Foreign State Papers, 1840–1841, vol 29 (1857). James Ridgway and Sons, London, pp 1129–1139

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehberg H (1931) The outlawry of war. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington

    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). Self-Defence as an Exception to the Prohibition of War. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation