This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1. International law regulates the use of force in two
important respects. First, international rules determine the limited circumstances in which states have a legitimate claim to resort forceful measures. This body of law is often referred to as jus ad bellum. Second, international law also imposes limitations on the use of armed force once conflict has broken out. These rules are known as jus in bello. Attempts to regulate the use of force have been one of the major historical influences on the development of international law;
2. The basic position of international law in relation to the
regulation of the right to resort to force is encapsulated in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter. The UN Charter provides a comprehensive prohibition on the use of force as stated by the article : “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 UN” – the Heart of Charter … is dead ? Who killed that?
3. Article 2(4) is a fundamental principle of the UN Charter
and has come to be accepted as a norm of customary international law. Although it establishes a general prohibition, it is important to note that Article 2(4) is not an absolute prohibition on the use of force. The UN Charter includes four principle exceptions to Article 2(4) are : (i)Article 51 and the right of individual or collective self-defence; (ii)Chapter VII and the right of the Security Council to take collective action on behalf of the member states of the UN; (iii)Article 10,11, and 14 which incorporate a role for the General Assembly of the UN to make recommendation for forceful measures by UN members against other states; and
the Legality of Nuclear Weapons. The case involved the Caroline. . The Caroline (1837) is a seminal case in this area.(iv)Article 53 which allows for regional organizations to undertake forceful action with the prior authorization of the SC. and others). The prohibition on the use of force has been repeatedly reaffirmed in General Assembly resolutions (GA resolution 1970. 4. 5. GA resolution 1974). NY. leaving no choice of means. and no moment for deliberation” (ie the action taken must be the only option available in the circumstances). The British ambassador to the US pleaded self-defence while the US argued that self-defence may be exercise only when the “necessity is instant. the Legality of Use of Force by Nato. several decisions in juristic writings and by states. overwhelming. The use of force by a state in self-defence has long been regarded as a lawful under customary international law. The Prohibition in Article 2(4) purports to cover all uses of force and threats to use force. The ship’s crew was assaulted and the vessel was burnt and sent over the Niagara Falls. It recognizes the right of self-defence in circumstances of overwhelming necessity and where the response is proportional to threat. an American ship that was used to supply amunitions to Canadian rebels during the Canadian rebellion of 1837. Tehran Hostages Case. One night a British officer ordered that the Caroline be boarded while it was moored at Fort Schlosser. The contention was accepted and reflects customary international law to this day. ICJ decisions (Corfu Channel Case. Nicaragua Case.
proponents of this view consider the customary international law right of selfdefence to have been superseded by the Charther provision. 8. The right of self-defence is contained in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The scope of the right of self-defence has been the subject of considerable debate among jurists. regardless of whether or not they are members of the UN. It states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN. Based on the narrow approach. The right of pre-emptive strike or anticipatory self-defence is therefore specifically excluded under this approach. A narrow approach is attractive to those concerned that a return to customary law notions of self-defence may encourage aggression by states . The Court reached this conclusion on the basis of evidence of state practice and opinio juris in a number of key instruments that have adopted by international community. The ICJ desscribed Article 2(4) as representing a norm of CIL binding on all states in the international community. there are narrow and broad interpretations are described in the literatures and international journals. resort ti to use of force in self-defence is restricted to circumstances where “an armed attack has actually occurred”. Therefore. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the SC and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the SC 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. until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. In interpreting Article 51 narrowly. 7.6.
Israel justified its military action by suggesting that the above acts represented the commencement of an armed attact against the state of Israel. Israel’s use of force in the Six Day War of 1967 is a useful example. Israel noted : Egypt’s decision to withdraw UN emergency force from the Sinai Peninsula. Syria and Lebanon.seeking to justify the use of force in self-defence where no actual armed attact has occurred. The key requirements for the right of self-defence is customary international law under circumstances : (a)armed attack against state territory. 9. (b)proportionality and necessity. Jordan. the large-scale deployment of troops and equipment by Arab states on Israel’s border with Egypt. Others contend that such a narrow approach is unrealistic in an age when a first strike on a state can obliterate its state’s capacity to act in self-defence. What about Falkland Island Case. the closure by Egypt of the Straits of Tiran to Israel’s shipping. There. 10. On this point some measures of anticipatory self-defence is permissible so long as it is proportionate to the actual threat. On the other hand. 9/11 incident for global war against terrorism. (c)use of force in defence. Israel pointed to threatening behaviour from neighbouring Arab states. (d)report to the SC … . the use of force is justified where any military action is taken against a state by its enemy. This interpretation has been used to justify pre-emptive strikes against aggressive states that are threatening the use of force. expansive view of self-defence.
Pembatasan Kedaulatan Teritorial: Imunitas 7. Perairan Kepulauan. Pengertian (Fungsi dan Doktrin Pengakuan) Pengakuan De Jure dan De Facto Akibat Hukum dari Pengakuan.l.Tinoco Arbitration Case (UK v. Costa Rica). Kasus : a.Indonesian Case 1946 .Review untuk UAS : I. Perairan Pedalaman. 2. 2010 1. . 6.Apa yang Sdr ketahui tentang pengakuan dihubungkan dengan kasus Palestina dan Kosovo ? II. ICJ Advisory Opinion.l. Island of Palmas Case 1928 . Laut Lepas) 5. 18 October 1923 . Ruang Udara dan Ruang Angkasa 6. Pengakuan (Recognition) : 1. Syarat-syarat terbentuknya negara Kedaulatan Negara dan Hak Berdaulat Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Darat Kedaulatan atas Wilayah Laut (Laut Teritorial.ICJ East Timor Case. 3. 7.Panama Case . Portugal vs Australia. 5. 1995 . 2.Declaration of Independence Kosovo. Negara dan Kedaulatan Teritorial (State and Territorial Sovereignty) 1. Zona Tambahan. Pengakuan Negara dan Pemerintah Baru Pengakuan terhadap Insurgensi dan Beligerensi Pengakuan terhadap Wilayah dan Non-Pengakuan Kasus : a. 3. 4. Zona Ekonomi Eksklusif. 4.
Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran Kewajiban dalam Perjanjian Internasional . Jurisdiksi di Laut dan Ruang Udara/Angkasa 3. House of Lord.Jurisdiksi Teritorial b. dan Bentuk 2.Jurisdiksi Nasionalitas c.Eichmann Case 1961 . Beberapa Prinsip Jurisdiksi : a. 2000 .Jurisdiksi berdasarkan Perjanjian Internasional f.Bagaimana Kedaulatan territorial menurut Max Huber dalam kasus Palmas 1928? Bagaimana kedaulatan Negara di laut dan di udara/ruang angkasa ? III. Pengertian.Construction of Wall Case.Pinochet Case.Jurisdiksi Universal e. Kasus : a. jurisdiksi apa yang berlaku? IV. Pengertian : 2.Western Sahara Case 1975 Sipadan Ligitan Case 2002 ICJ East Timor Case. Teori. ICJ Advisory Opinion. Portugal vs Australia. 2002 2.l : . Jelaskan prinsip-prinsip jurisdiksi yang Sdr ketahui dan bagaimana perkembangan jurisdiski universal! Bagaimana menurut Sdr tentang kasus Perompak Somalia. ICJ.Lotus Case 1927 . Tanggung Jawab Negara (State Responsibility) 1. Jurisdiksi (Jurisdiction) : 1. 2004 : Occupied Palestinian Territory 3. 1995 Arrest Warrant Case.Jurisdiksi Perlindungan d.
Genocide Case 2007 7. Rainbow Warrior Case (France-New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal. : 1. Corfu Channel Case 1949 4.l.Akibat Hukum Suksesi Negara Kasus : a. PCIJ 2. IAComHR : duty to punish 4.3.Apa yang dimaksud dengan suksesi Negara ? Jelaskan dengan disertai contoh-contohnya ! VI.Sebab-sebab terjadinya Suksesi Negara 3.Jelaskan perkembangan pengaturan hukum internasional tentang tanggung jawab Negara ! pelajari Draft Articles on State Responsibility tahun 2001 Jelaskan kasus tentang mekanisme tanggung jawab Negara yang Sdr ketahui V. Estrella vs Uruguay. Perkembangan Hukum Internasional : .Perkembangan Draft Articles on State Responsibility 2001 Kasus : a. Barcelona Traction Light 1970 6.l. 1980 : Duty of State in Omission 6.Tanggung jawab Negara atas Pelanggaran Hukum Internasional dan Akibat Hukumnya 4. 1990) : duty to punish 5. Trail Smelter Case 1941 3. : East Timor Case 1999 Yugoslavia Uni Soviet 5.Pengertian : Pelajari Konvensi Wina 1978 2. Chorzow Factory Case. Suksesi Negara (State Succession) 1. Teheran Hostage Case ICJ.
and Social Rights (ICECSR)1966. Konvensi-Konvensi Jenewa 1949 dan Protokol Tambahan I+II 1977 e. Agenda 21 b. c. Cultural. Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources 1962. Konvensi Hukum Laut (UNCLOS) 1982 e. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 b. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)1966 d. Crimes against Humanity. UNCBD c. World Charter for Nature 1982 d. the Crime of Aggreesion … the most serious crimes of international concerns 2. UNFCCC . Hukum HAM Internasional/Hukum Humaniter Internasional : a. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang Lingkungan dan Pembangunan (UNCED) 1992: a.1. Hasil-Hasil Konferensi PBB tentang Lingkungan Hidup Manusia (UN Conference on Human Environment) : Stockholm Declaration 1972 c. 1803 b. War Crimes. Statuta Roma 1998 tentang Mahkamah Kejahatan Internasional (ICC-International Criminal Court): Genocide. Res MU PBB No. International Covenant on Economic. Hukum Lingkungan Internasional/Hukum Nuklir Internasional : a.
com . Lingkungan global. HAM. Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere. in Outer Space. Konvensi Wina tentang Nuklir dan Resolusi-Resolusi DK PBB 6. 1963 g. Forest Principles Johannesburg Declaration 2002 tentang Prinsip-Prinsip Pembangunan Berkelanjutan (Sustainable Development) f.d. dan perdagangan internasional ? Semua tugas dikirim ke email: idris_idris@yahoo. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996 i.Apa yang Sdr ketahui perkembangan hukum internasional mengenai hukum humaniter. and Under Water. Rio Declaration e. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) 1968 h.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.