Hostile Methods

Where the pacific methods of settling disputes are unsuccessful, states sometimes find it
expedient to resort to what are known as the hostile or non-amicable methods. Such methods are not
only unfriendly but they may post other characteristics in settling disputes, violent, coercive and illegal
acts are usually imposed to those weaker countries with the use of overt power.

The hostile methods of settling disputes may be classified into retorsions, reprisal, and
intervention. The first two types of method will be discussed as intervention was already discussed
earlier.

Retorsion

Is an act perpetrated by one nation upon another in retaliation for a similar act perpetrated by the other
nation. Retorsion usually does not constitute a legal ground for offense but rather in the nature of
unfriendly acts and indirectly hurtful to others. Retorsion may take the form of discriminatory
immigration, travel, taxation or fishing rights treatment to the nationals of the targeted state.

Retorsion may also be Discriminatory actions against the citizens of one state by and within that of
another, as a gentle reprisal against some perceived injustice imposed upon their own citizens in and by
the targeted state.

Example of retorsion are severance of diplomatic or consular relations, suspension of commercial

intercourse, boycott, stoppage of travel to the other state, denunciation of treaties, impositions of tariffs
and other trade barriers, currency restrictions, denial of loans and withdrawal of previously enjoyed,
recognition of a rival government, and adverse propaganda.

Detailed examples of retorsions are legion in international affairs. The U.S., for example, froze trade with
Uganda in 1978 following accusations of genocide, and with Iran after the 1979 Revolution. In 2000,
fourteen European states suspended various diplomatic relations with Austria in protest of the
participation of Jorg Haider in the government. Numerous states suspended trade and diplomatic
relations with South Africa as punishment for apartheid practices. In none of these cases was the charge
of “collective punishment” even raised. “Punishing” an entity with restrictions on international trade is
not identical to carrying out “collective punishment.”

Reprisal

A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that
has already broken them. Reprisals in the laws of war are extremely limited, as they commonly breached
the rights of civilians, an action outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. It is not to be confused with
retorsions, as these constitute unfriendly acts generally permitted by international law. Reprisals are an
act of self-help on the part of the injured state, responding after an unsatisfied demand to an act
contrary to international law on the part of the offending state.

An example of reprisal is the Naulilaa dispute between Portugal and Germany in October 1914. After
three Germans were mistakenly killed in Naulilaa on the border of the Portuguese colony of Angola (in a
manner that did not violate international law), Germany carried out a military raid on Naulilaa,
destroying property in retaliation. A claim for compensation was brought by Portugal. The tribunal
emphasized that before reprisals could be legally undertaken, a number of conditions had to be
satisfied:

 There had to be a previous act by the other party that violated international law.
 Reprisals had to be preceded by an unsatisfied demand for reparation or compliance with the
violated international law.
 There must be proportionality between the offence and reprisal.

The German claim that it had acted lawfully was rejected on all three grounds.

After 1945, as a result of the general prohibition on use of force imposed by Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter, armed reprisals in time of peace are no longer legal, but the possibility remains of non-armed
reprisals (also known as countermeasures) as well as belligerent reprisals during hostilities when the law
of international armed conflict (LOIAC) is violated.

In the case of belligerent reprisals, apart from the three factors in the Naulilaa case, a warning must also
be issued beforehand; once the other party has stopped violation of LOIAC, belligerent reprisals must
also be terminated; and the decision to engage in belligerent reprisals must be taken by a competent
authority. In the United States military, the lowest ranked commander who may authorize a reprisal is a
general in command of a theatre.

All four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, shipwreck
survivors, prisoners of war and civilians, as well as certain buildings and property. An additional 1977
protocol extends this to cover historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship.

Among the more common forms of reprisals are display of force, occupation of territory, embargo, and
pacific blockade.

Requina, Al Rex B.