Fundamental Principles of International Law

1-Prohibition of the threat or the use of force

2-Peaceful/pacific settlement of disputies
3-Non-interference in the internal affairs of states(principle of non-intervention)
4-The duty of states to cooperate
5-The right of determination of people(The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples)
6-Principles of sovereign equality of states

These principles are fundamental to the conduct of international law and they are
to be exercised by all states without exception.
Except the right of determination, they all are related to inter-state relations

Prohibition of the threat of the use of force

It serves the very purpose of the UN charter that is to maintain and preserve
international peace and security.When we are talking about the use of force it
constitutes an act of aggression which give states the inherent rights of self-defense
but when we are talking about the the threat of use of force, when you threaten a
state, that may escalate.When you feel threatened by the actions of another state,
if you move your troops to the border of that state, the situation has the potential
to escalate.

In the case of the threat of use of force there is no actual use of force.
Therefore inherent rights of self-defence cannot be used in the case of the
threat of use of force but only after the use of force.

UN charter says that all states shall be 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.
Secondly,when we are talking about the use of force, we may refer to a war of
aggression which means a state declares war and uses force against another
state with the intent to assume control over this territory.So in the case of war
of aggression, what we have is a clear violation of the united nations charter
and under which security council has the right to authorize any necessary
measures.

In the case of a war of aggression also states would have the inherent right to
self-defence.

The UN charter itself does not define what aggresion is but instead they adopted a
resolution which defines the act of aggression.So accordingly, we see aggression in
cases where there is the first use of armed forces against the territorial integrity,
political independence and sovereignty of a state.

Not all uses of force can be considered as an aggression it has to be a sufficient

gravity.

Sufficient gravity——> it has to be serious enough to be considered as an act

of aggression.

First use of armed forces which has sufficient gravity is what we need in order
to consider this an act of aggression.In accordance with this propoganda for a
war of aggression is also prohibited.In general terms, you cannot support and
encourage a war of aggression.

Every state is also has the duty to refrain from threat or use of
force to violing international lines of demarcation.
All states are asked to refrain from solving their disputes by resorting through the
threat or the use of force.Two states are in a conflict with each other so the best
way to resolve it not to threaten the other party or to resolve to the use of force.

Every state has to respect armistice lines, boundary lines or demarcation lines that
are established under international agreements.

States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.
Reprisal—> it’s a kind of sanction where we respond to an illegal act in an illegal
manner.

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples
referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination
of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or
participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing
in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such
acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use
of force.

If there is a civil war within a state the other state cannot be part of this civil
war.They cannot support rebel and terrorist groups. Aiding and abetting terrorist
groups, providing military training and financial assistance are all violation of the
prohibition of the threat or use of force.

In case a state obtain a territory from another state with the illegal use of
force, all other states of the international community are aspected not to
recognize this territorial gain.
 Exceptions of prohibitions of the use of force
1-Inherent right of individual or collective self-defense
States are individual units. For example if a state attacks Turkey, Turkey can
respond to that state in order to defend itself. Turkey acting on its own called
individual self-defense but Turkey is also a member of NATO, under the right of
collective self-defense Turkey and its allies can respond to this aggressive state.

Why is self-defense an exception to the prohibitions of the use of force?

Just because use of force is prohibited it does not mean you cannot protect yourself.
When we can determine that there is an aggressive state, it allows the state which
has been attacked to respond with the use of force to protect the territorial
integrity, political independence and sovereignty of the state.
In the case of aggression there has to be an actual use of armed forces.

2-Being authorization of the UN Security Council under article 42

Under chapter 7 the Security Council has the authority to apply peaceful measures
when these are not sufficient, it has the ability to apply coercive measures up to and
including the use of force.
If the Security Council considers a certain situation a threat to international
peace and security or as an act of aggression, it can authorize the use of force
under article 42.

ANTICIPATOR Y SELF-DEFENCE—>expect a state to use force in anticipation of

armed attack.