149:
proportional, "since the act justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it." These statements by the US Secretary of State to the
British authorities are accepted as an accurate description of the customary right of preemptive, or anticipatory, self-defense. They are sometimes mistakenly said to apply to all uses of force by states in self-defense.
77:
in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
76:
Nothing in the present
Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members
66:
The drafters’ intent was that collective force approved and organized by the
Security Council would substitute for unilateral uses of force by states. However, some states were concerned that use of the veto power by one of the Council's permanent members might prevent that body from taking necessary
148:
case established that in order for one state to use force in the territory of another state which had not used force first there had to exist "a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation,' and furthermore that any action taken must be
110:
Some commentators believe that the effect of
Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). Another view is that Article 51 acknowledges the previously existing customary international law right and then proceeds
111:
to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted, as in the
53:
All
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
135:
The traditional customary rules on preemptive self-defense derive from an early diplomatic incident between the United States and the United
Kingdom over the killing of two US citizens who were on board a ship (the
140:), which was docked in the U.S. but which had been carrying personnel and stores of war to rebels in Canada, then a British colony. The U.S. government had not approved or supported the
390:
144:
activities and the ship was peacefully at anchor in the U.S. when
British forces attacked, burned the ship and sent it over Niagara Falls. The so-called
195:
416:
295:
401:
253:
215:
567:
430:
431:
The
Caroline (Christopher Greenwood) in the context of international law - Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
321:
300:
107:
97:
115:
case noted below. Not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack. The ICJ has tried to clarify, in
199:
46:
421:
467:
Regulation of
Preventive and Preemptive Force in the United Nations Charter: A Search for Original Intent,
117:
102:
229:
373:
Provost’s Lecture Series on Global Issues - The People Speak: America Debates its Role in the World
326:
336:
394:
285:
24:
572:
379:
67:
action, and they insisted upon inserting into the Charter an explicit right of self defense.
411:
369:
316:
8:
417:
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School: The Webster-Ashburton Treaty and The Caroline Case
258:
529:
59:
481:
82:
233:
178:
175:
instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation
162:
89:
20:
402:
The Caroline Case : Anticipatory Self-Defence in Contemporary International Law
290:
211:
203:
355:
406:
331:
270:
222:
170:
362:
183:
166:
93:
92:
recognizes a right of self-defence according to the Chapter VII, Article 51 of
561:
280:
264:
194:). This concept has been used to mitigate the lack of definition provided by
188:
130:
30:
16:
412:
Obituary of Neil MacGregor, one of the Upper Canada militiamen on the raid
312:
275:
247:
232:" and is also now invoked frequently in the course of the dispute around
121:, what level of force is necessary to qualify as an armed attack.
124:
187:: self-defense without being physically attacked first (see
70:
422:
Chapter 7, "British Steamer is Burned by Patriots" in
37:, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment."
559:
454:The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary
45:
497:The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary
391:"Special Report: Israel and International Law,"
19:, the 17th-century jurist and father of public
228:has been used to establish the principle of "
125:Customary international law and Caroline test
407:The Caroline Incident during the Patriot War
356:"Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate,"
307:Domestic law issues related to self-defense
375:, Stony Brook University, October 15, 2003
296:Threat of force (public international law)
513:Encyclopedia of Public International Law,
482:Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter
254:Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter
216:Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter
83:Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter
71:Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter
60:Chapter I, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
363:"Special Analysis: The Imminent Threat,"
560:
384:London Review of Books, Vol. 24 No. 14
424:Northern New York In The Patriot War
365:windsofchange.net, September 4, 2003
322:Castle Doctrine in the United States
546:Wisconsin International Law Journal
13:
517:Self-Defense in International Law,
470:Wyoming Law Review, vol. 3, p. 663
358:, spinsanity.org, November 3, 2003
177:". These criteria are used in the
152:
14:
584:
301:Use of force in international law
23:, stated in his 1625 magnum opus
568:Aggression in international law
370:"Learning From Recent History,"
535:
522:
502:
486:
475:
459:
443:
98:International Court of Justice
1:
343:
200:Charter of the United Nations
47:Charter of the United Nations
530:Dan Webster, Yale Law School
29:that "Most Men assign three
7:
515:vol. 1, p.538, and Bowett,
239:
214:has adopted measures under
161:is a standard criterion in
40:
10:
591:
236:(or preemption doctrine).
128:
230:anticipatory self-defense
327:Clear and present danger
26:The Law of War and Peace
426:, 1923, By L. N. Fuller
337:Imminent lawless action
184:preemptive self-defense
543:Raising the "Caroline"
395:The American Spectator
386:, 25 July 2002, pp 3–5
286:Security-related bills
173:. The threat must be "
100:(ICJ) affirmed in the
87:
64:
548:vol.17, p.325 (1994).
74:
51:
317:grievous bodily harm
202:, which states that
169:as he litigated the
259:Collective security
389:Matthew Omolesky,
31:Just Causes of War
380:"Jumping the Gun"
234:preemptive strike
204:sovereign nations
181:justification of
179:international law
163:international law
90:International law
21:international law
580:
549:
539:
533:
526:
520:
506:
500:
490:
484:
479:
473:
463:
457:
447:
291:Targeted killing
212:Security Council
206:may fend off an
157:As noted above,
85:
62:
590:
589:
583:
582:
581:
579:
578:
577:
558:
557:
555:
553:
552:
540:
536:
527:
523:
510:The Caroline in
507:
503:
494:Article 2(4) in
491:
487:
480:
476:
464:
460:
451:Article 2(4) in
448:
444:
378:Michael Byers,
346:
341:
332:Duty to retreat
271:Just war theory
242:
171:Caroline affair
165:, developed by
159:imminent threat
155:
153:Imminent threat
133:
127:
86:
81:
73:
63:
58:
50:
43:
12:
11:
5:
588:
587:
576:
575:
570:
551:
550:
534:
521:
501:
492:Randelzhofer,
485:
474:
458:
449:Randelzhofer,
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
433:
428:
419:
414:
409:
404:
399:
387:
376:
368:Wolf Schäfer,
366:
359:
351:
350:
345:
342:
340:
339:
334:
329:
324:
319:
309:
308:
304:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
261:
256:
251:
243:
241:
238:
167:Daniel Webster
154:
151:
129:Main article:
126:
123:
118:Nicaragua Case
103:Nicaragua Case
94:the UN Charter
79:
72:
69:
56:
49:
44:
42:
39:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
586:
585:
574:
571:
569:
566:
565:
563:
556:
547:
544:
538:
531:
525:
518:
514:
511:
505:
498:
495:
489:
483:
478:
471:
468:
462:
455:
452:
446:
442:
436:
435:
432:
429:
427:
425:
420:
418:
415:
413:
410:
408:
405:
403:
400:
397:
396:
392:
388:
385:
381:
377:
374:
371:
367:
364:
361:Dan Darling,
360:
357:
353:
352:
348:
347:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
314:
311:
310:
306:
305:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
281:Religious war
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
266:
265:Jus ad bellum
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
250:
249:
245:
244:
237:
235:
231:
227:
225:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
191:
186:
185:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
150:
147:
143:
139:
132:
131:Caroline test
122:
120:
119:
114:
109:
105:
104:
99:
95:
91:
84:
78:
68:
61:
55:
48:
38:
36:
32:
28:
27:
22:
18:
573:Self-defense
554:
545:
542:
537:
524:
519:p.59 (1958).
516:
512:
509:
504:
496:
493:
488:
477:
469:
466:
461:
453:
450:
445:
423:
393:
383:
372:
263:
246:
223:
220:
208:armed attack
207:
189:
182:
174:
158:
156:
145:
141:
137:
134:
116:
112:
108:use of force
101:
88:
75:
65:
52:
34:
25:
17:Hugo Grotius
15:
354:Ben Fritz,
313:Bodily harm
276:Laws of war
248:Casus belli
562:Categories
344:References
210:until the
196:Article 51
142:Caroline's
541:Kearley,
465:Kearley,
398:, 7.18.06
96:, as the
240:See also
224:Caroline
190:Caroline
146:Caroline
138:Caroline
113:Caroline
80:—
57:—
41:Overview
499:(1994).
472:(2003).
456:(1994).
349:Sources
198:of the
106:on the
35:Defence
508:Meng,
226:affair
437:Notes
315:and
221:The
192:test
564::
382:,
218:.
33:,
532:)
528:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.