Journal of Defense Management
Open Access

National Self-Defense and the Domestic Analogy

Port Nicholas^{* *}Correspondence: Port Nicholas, Department of Defense Management, Jamia Millia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi, India, Email:

Author info »

Description

The events of September 11 and the military response that followed from the United States and its allies raise a number of difficult issues in international law. The idea of self-defense under international law is relevant in the event of an attack by a terrorist organisation that is not a state. The self-defence doctrine allowed for military action against the Taliban regime and the Afghani government itself. Before ending military operations against the Taliban government and Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, the United States had the right to impose conditions on it.

Only the first question can have a definitive affirmative response. The others are shrouded in doubt. This uncertainty, in part, reflects how international law has evolved from focusing primarily on regulating interactions between sovereign states (countries) to now having to take non-state group acts into account.

As a result of this change, governments' accountability for the deeds of non-state actors like the global terrorist network Al Qaeda is getting more attention. The United States' sporadic use of military force against these groups and alleged "state sponsors of terrorism" during the 1990s appears to be causing a change in recognised state behaviour, which is (arguably) having an impact on the bounds of international customary law.

The United Nations General Assembly should authorise the International Law Commission to codify the specific rules governing the doctrine of self-defense under international law, given that the United States is likely to be driven primarily by national interests.

Importance of national self-defense

Aggressive war is considered to be the "supreme international crime," according to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. That was reaffirmed by the UN and supported by numerous court rulings. Nazi commanders claimed that their main motivation was self-defense against a fictitious Soviet Union onslaught. After a fair trial, their excuse for mass murder was found wanting, and the responsible leaders were hung.

Domestic analogy

In contrast to the Briand-Kellogg accord, the Charter forbids all forms of force, not just the use of force in war. According to the ICJ in Nicaraguav, the rule was universally acknowledged and swiftly incorporated into customary international law. Nothing in the present Charter shall undermine the basic right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken the appropriate action to ensure international peace and security.

The Security Council must be immediately informed of any actions taken by Members in the exercise of this right to selfdefense, but this does not in any way affect the Security Council's power and obligation under the current Charter to take whatever action it deems necessary at any time to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Conclusion

The right of self-defense does not mention that it includes attacks by non-state actors when it refers to customary international law. Additionally, it is unclear if it covers preemptive self-defense. A State would be required to launch a pre-emptive strike, however, if it were to come under an impending armed attack by a non-state actor acting in a third state, according to the statement that follows. It means that India believes that when an assault from non-state actors operating out of another State is imminent, States may launch preemptive self-defense attacks. When they are interpreted apart from one another, neither India's perspective on customary international law nor its perspective on the right to self-defense reflect one another.

However, what it portrays as its comprehensive understanding of the right to self-defense against attacks from non-state actors is its integrated interpretation of customary international law, which authorises anticipatory self-defence and which permits selfdefence against non-state actors. This is a very broad interpretation of the right to self-defense.