Search

This article marks the launch of the new 'Jus ad bellum Series' in the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, designed to explore the evolving state practice in the jus ad bellum regime. This inaugural piece explores the evolving state practice in relation to self-defence against armed non-state actors (ANSAs), focusing specifically on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. The article is structured into four key sections: first, the interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter; second, the contentious issue of anticipatory self-defence, focusing on how recent state practice has reshaped the concept of imminence in response to modern security threats; third, the criteria of necessity and proportionality; finally, the 'unwilling or unable' doctrine. The analysis of Article 51's interpretation reveals significant variation in how states frame their self-defence claims, reflecting the complexity of applying traditional jus ad bellum rules to contemporary security threats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the history of the Unwilling or Unable Standard has been misunderstood, usually framed as either a longstanding principle or a recent, modern innovation in the context of the War on Terror. In taking a Global-South-centred approach to history, this article concludes that it is neither. Instead, it is framed as an imperial logic that emerges and submerges from history, depending on whether imperial and colonial powers need to determine specific geographies as 'bombable'. The article finds key similarities between the Unwilling or Unable of today and the Monroe Doctrine of the early twentieth century, concluding they are manifestations of the same imperial logic in a history of discontinuity. The article concludes that in a South-centred history, the use of force rules is not expansive, but rather that non-Western states have consistently defended a much more anti-interventionist international law than Eurocentric history might otherwise suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La emergencia del Dáesh promovió que algunos Estados relanzaran la doctrina que facultaría a aplicar la legítima defensa contra un actor no estatal cuando el Estado en el que se encuentra el grupo no quiere o no tiene la capacidad de combatirlo. Mediante el uso de una metodología jurídica clásica que estudia las fuentes del Derecho internacional, la jurisprudencia y las aportaciones doctrinales más relevantes con un enfoque socio-jurídico crítico analizamos la licitud de esta doctrina y sus implicaciones en la comprensión del Derecho internacional. Así, determinaremos que se trata de una doctrina ambigua y arbitraria que no cuenta con el respaldo estatal suficiente para conformarse como derecho y que contraviene el principio de integridad territorial y la soberanía estatal, así como las normas de responsabilidad internacional del Estado. La tesis refleja la pretensión de impulsar un Derecho internacional hegemónico. The emergence of Daesh prompted some States to relaunch the doctrine that would allow the application of self-defence against a non-State actor when the State in which the group is located is unwilling or unable to combat it. Using a classical legal methodology that studies the sources of international law, jurisprudence and the most relevant doctrinal contributions with a critical socio-legal approach, we analyse the lawfulness of this doctrine and its implications in the understanding of international law. We will determine that it is an ambiguous and arbitrary doctrine that does not have sufficient state support to become law and that contravenes the principle of territorial integrity and state sovereignty, as well as the rules of international responsibility of the state. The thesis reflects the pretension of promoting a hegemonic international law.

This article discusses the military campaign against the 'Islamic State' (Daesh) in an attempt to illustrate the gaps in the international legal framework that regulates the use of force in dealing with a challenge such as that presented by the Islamic State. This case study was demanding given the need to reconcile state-centred rules with a diverse reality which includes several players, and particularly non-state armed groups in control of territory and population. In order to deal with this issue, the article proposes the invocation of a functional approach, compared with a binary approach, which is suitable in cases where several players exercise power in the same territory. In particular, it suggests that the Islamic State could have been treated functionally as a state for the purposes of self-defence or collective security measures, rather than invoking legal doctrines of unclear status that might result in undermining the international legal system they are invoked to protect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]