Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper

Order Now

Self defense (under international court of justice and UN charter) CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….
The prohibition of the threat of force stands directly alongside its
loftier counterpart, the prohibition of the use of force, in Article 2(4)
of the United Nations Charter.1 Yet, although states continually
reference the prohibition of the use of military force (even while
breaking it), the scope and nature of the prohibition of the threat of
force has found little articulation in state practice. This discrepancy
is also apparent in the writings of scholars. As such, numerous
questions remain unanswered with regard to the status of threats of
force in international law. This Article considers one such issue: the
relationship between the prohibition of the threat of force and the
international law governing self-defense.
In contrast to the legal status of threats of force generally, the
lawfulness of forcible self-defense taken in response to a threat of
force has been exhaustively, and exhaustingly, discussed in the
academic literature. This debate over the lawfulness of “anticipatory”
and “preemptive” self-defense has raged all the more fiercely since
the atrocities of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent “war on
1. U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4. 
LICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….
2011] Threats of Force Made in Self-Defense 287
terror.”2 However, the literature has left the inverted question,
whether self-defense can be manifested by way of a threat of force,
almost entirely unasked.3 Therefore, it is not our intention to
examine the question of whether military force taken in self-defense
may be lawful in response to a threat. Instead, we ask whether a
threat of force (a prima facie unlawful action under Article 2(4)4) can
gain the status of lawfulness if taken as a defensive response, and,
assuming that it can, we ask what criteria may be used to determine
the lawfulness of such a defensive threat. This Article thus examines
the legality of threats made in self-defense, which may also be
referred to as “countervailing threats.”5
In 1996, as discussed in Part II, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) concluded that a threat of force is unlawful when th
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….

Self defense (under international court of justice and UN charter)

CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….
The prohibition of the threat of force stands directly alongside its
loftier counterpart, the prohibition of the use of force, in Article 2(4)
of the United Nations Charter.1 Yet, although states continually
reference the prohibition of the use of military force (even while
breaking it), the scope and nature of the prohibition of the threat of
force has found little articulation in state practice. This discrepancy
is also apparent in the writings of scholars. As such, numerous
questions remain unanswered with regard to the status of threats of
force in international law. This Article considers one such issue: the
relationship between the prohibition of the threat of force and the
international law governing self-defense.
In contrast to the legal status of threats of force generally, the
lawfulness of forcible self-defense taken in response to a threat of
force has been exhaustively, and exhaustingly, discussed in the
academic literature. This debate over the lawfulness of “anticipatory”
and “preemptive” self-defense has raged all the more fiercely since
the atrocities of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent “war on
1. U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4. 
LICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….
2011] Threats of Force Made in Self-Defense 287
terror.”2 However, the literature has left the inverted question,
whether self-defense can be manifested by way of a threat of force,
almost entirely unasked.3 Therefore, it is not our intention to
examine the question of whether military force taken in self-defense
may be lawful in response to a threat. Instead, we ask whether a
threat of force (a prima facie unlawful action under Article 2(4)4) can
gain the status of lawfulness if taken as a defensive response, and,
assuming that it can, we ask what criteria may be used to determine
the lawfulness of such a defensive threat. This Article thus examines
the legality of threats made in self-defense, which may also be
referred to as “countervailing threats.”5
In 1996, as discussed in Part II, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) concluded that a threat of force is unlawful when th
CLICK HERE TO ORDER FOR THIS PAPER…………………….

Click here to have a similar A+ quality paper

Order Now