USE OF FORCE
taken measures necessary by Members
Basic Principle
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
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
Clause 7 of Article 2
directs the state not to intervene in
domestic matters of any state and
encourages the member states to submit
such matters to the settlement under the
present Charter
SECURITY COUNCIL
Authorized to first determine the
existence of any threat to the peace,
breach of the peace, or act of aggression
and then make recommendations or
decide what measures shall be taken in
accordance with Article 41 and 42 to
maintain or restore international peace
and security (Article 41;peaceful
measure, Article 42; if the measures
taken under Article 41 are inadequate or
proved to be inadequate, coercive
measures like action by air, sea or land
force may be taken if necessary to
restore international peace and security.)
Article 51 of the Charter
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 United
Nations, until the Security Council has
in the exercise of this right of self-
defence 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
Self Defence
Solution in the commission of armed
attack or its eminent threat in the
maintenance of international peace and
security.
until the Security Council takes measures
necessary to maintain international
peace and security
LIMITATIONS
Who can exercise it
The state against whom it can be
exercised
Subject matter for the protection of
which it can be exercised
The time and area within which it can be
exercised
The degree which it can be exercised
WHO CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF
SELF DEFENCE
One view is that Article 51 is applicable
only to members,others extends its
application to non-members also
second view holds that the right of self
defence under Article 51 cannot be
denied to non- members. States have
right of self-defence under international
law
AGAINST WHOM THE RIGHT CAN BE
EXERCISED
against the state or states that commit an
armed attack or pose its imminent threat
Such armed attack or its imminent threat
may be direct or indirect
Action against which Self Defence
can be Exercised
only armed attack or also the imminent
threat of armed attack or any other kind
of action short of use of force or its threat
entitles the state to use its right of self-
defence
armed attack involves force or arms and
has offensive destructive and illegal
nature
An armed attack may be direct or
indirect. It is direct when a state
directly employs its armed forces against
another state. It is indirect when a state
indirectly commits armed attack against
another state by sending armed groups,
irregulars or mercenaries which carryout
acts of armed attack with sufficient
gravity against another state.
The imminent danger or threat of armed
attack must be according to Caroline
Doctrine, “instant, overwhelming, leaving
no choice of means, and no moment for
deliberation
Extent of Area to be Defended
if an armed attack has been posed by a
state against a particular area in the
territory of another state the latter state
can exercise its right of self –defence in
any area within the territory of another
state would be considered to have been
directed against the whole territory of
such state
If a state allows its territory to be used
by another state for launching armed
attack against a third state, such third
state can use force in self –defence
against both the former states
Principle of Proportionality and
Necessity
acts taken in self- defence must be
proportionate to the danger threatened
and they must not exceed in manner or
in purpose the necessity provoking them.
the preventive purpose of self-defence
does not preclude interpreting the
principle of proportionality to permit
action directed to removing the danger.
However the magnitude and intensity-
the consequentiality of its effects must be
proportional. No more force has to be
used than is necessary for the purpose.
There should be proportion between
means and end.
Who will Report to the Security
Council
made by the defending state itself
the right of self-defence is stopped, if and
when the Security Council is able to take
effective action, or its objective is
achieved; armed attack is repelled by the
defender or when the imminent danger
of attack is removed by the defender or
by the attacker.
Collective Security and Use of Force
Pre-Emptive Self Defence
Refers to unilateral actions by a state or
states to remove a non-imminent
security threat.
A claim to entitlement to use unilaterally,
without prior international authorization,
high levels of violence to arrest an
incipient development that is not yet
operational or directly threatening, but
that, if permitted to mature, could be
seen by the potential preemptor as
susceptible to neutralization only at a
higher and possibly unacceptable cost to
itself.
prohibited under U.N.
Self defence is activated only in case of
committed armed attack
Requisite in Order to Use Force in
Self Defence Legally
1. Force may be used in self-defence
only in relation to an armed attack
2. The armed attack has to be
serious in nature (seriousness is to
be decided by the Security
Council)
3. The right of self-defence activates
only in case of committed unlawful
act.
4. The exercise of the right of self-
defence must comply with the
criterion of proportionality and
necessity.
5. The force is to be used to shot
back the attacker not to punish
the state.
6. The force is legitimate only if there
is actual attack or the attack has
already been committed.
7. Measures taken in the exercise of
the right of self-defence must be
reported immediately to the Security
Council.
Nicaragua Case and Pre-Emptive
Self Defence
i. A state which is victim of an armed
attack must declare that it was
really attacked.
ii. There is no existence of a rule in
the international law to authorise
a state to use of right of collective
self-defence on the basis of its
own evaluation of the situation.
iii. There is no rule to allow exercise
of collective self-defence in
absence of request made by a
victim state.
iv. The state exercising the right
must inform the Security Council.
Neo-Melian Doctrine
The strong do what they can and the
weak suffer what they must
Self- Defence against Terrorist
Attack
The Security Council by its resolutions
1368 (2001) and 1373, (2001) reaffirmed
the inherent right of individual and
collective self-defence as recognised by
the Charter of the United Nations and the
state practice
necessary and proportionate action could
be taken where the territorial state is
itself unable or unwilling to take the
necessary action.
Anticipatory Self-Defence
Use of force by a state to repel an
attacker before an actual attack has
taken place, before the army of the
enemy has crossed its border, and before
the bombs of the enemy fall upon its
territory.
“Anticipatory” ability to foresee
consequences of some future action and
take measures aimed at checking or
countering those consequences.
Only permitted if an attack is imminent.
Use of Force without Council’s
Support
THE THREAT OF FORCE
The Charter prohibits not just the use of
force but also the threat of force.
The most typical form of this threat is the
ultimatum in which the State to which it
is addressed is given a time-limit within
which to accept the demands made upon
it and is told that, if it rejects the
demands, war will be declared on it or
certain coercive measures such as a
naval blockade, bombardment, or
occupation of a given territory, will be
taken.
-------------------------------------------------
Principles of International Law on
Self-Defence
The Charter of the United Nations
prohibits the use of force against another
state except where the Security Council
has authorized the use of force to
maintain or restore international peace
and security; and where a state is
exercising its inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence recognised by
Article 51 of the Charter
The law on self-defence
encompasses more than the right to
use force in response to an ongoing
attack.
Article 51 preserves the right to use force
in self-defence “if an armed attack
occurs”, until the Council has taken the
necessary measures.
On one view, the right is confined to
circumstances in which an actual armed
attack has commenced
the view that states have a right to act in
self-defence in order to avert the threat
of an imminent attack - often referred to
as ‘anticipatory self-defence’- is widely,
though not universally, accepted
A threatened attack must be
‘imminent’ and this requirement rules out
any claim to use force to prevent a threat
emerging. Force may be used in self-
defence only when it is necessary to do
so, and the force used must be
proportionate.
Force may be used in self-defence
only in relation to an ‘armed attack’
whether imminent or ongoing
• The ‘armed attack’ may include
not only an attack against a state’s
territory, but also against
emanations of the state such as
embassies and armed forces.
• Force in self-defence may be
used only when: the attack
consists of the threat or use of
force (not mere economic
coercion, for example); when the
attacker has the intention and the
capability to attack; and the attack
is directed from outside territory
controlled by the state.
• In the case of a threatened
attack, there must be an actual
threat of an attack against the
defending state itself.
An ‘armed attack’ therefore is an
intentional intervention in or against
another state without that state’s
consent or subsequent acquiescence,
which is not legally justified.
Force may be used in self-defence
only when this is necessary to bring
an attack to an end, or to avert an
imminent attack. There must be no
practical alternative to the
proposed use of force that is likely
to be effective in ending or averting
the attack.
Thus, all peaceful means of ending or
averting the attack must have been
exhausted or be unavailable.
As such there should be no practical non-
military alternative to the proposed
course of action that would be likely to be
effective in averting the threat or
bringing an end to an attack
The defensive measure must be limited
to what is necessary to avert the on-
going attack or bring it to an end.
A state may use force in self-
defence against a threatened attack
only if that attack is ‘imminent’
• Force may be used only when any
further delay would result in an
inability by the threatened state
effectively to defend against or
avert the attack against it.
• In assessing the imminence of the
attack, reference may be made to
the gravity of the attack, the
capability of the attacker, and the
nature of the threat, for example
if the attack is likely to come
without warning.
• Force may be used only on a
proper factual basis and after a
good faith assessment of the
facts.
‘imminence’ instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of means, and no
moment for deliberation’
There must exist a circumstance of
irreversible emergency. Whether the
attack is ‘imminent’ depends upon the
nature of the threat and the possibility of
dealing effectively with it at any given
stage.
FACTORS OF IMMINENCE
1. gravity of the threatened attack
– whether what is threatened is a
catastrophic use of WMD
2. capability - for example, whether
the relevant state or terrorist
organisation is in possession of
WMD, or merely of material or
component parts to be used in its
manufacture
3. the nature of the attack –
including the possible risks of
making a wrong assessment of
the danger.
The exercise of the right of self-
defence must comply with the
criterion of ‘proportionality’
• The force used, taken as a whole,
must not be excessive in relation
to the need to avert or bring the
attack to an end.
• The physical and economic
consequences of the force used
must not be excessive in relation
to the harm expected from the
attack.
the principle of proportionality was
stated to require “nothing unreasonable
or excessive, since the act, justified by
the necessity of self- defence, must be
limited by that necessity, and kept clearly
within it.”
Article 51 is not confined to self-
defence in response to attacks by
states. The right of self-defence
applies also to attacks by non-state
actors.
• In such a case the attack must
be large scale.
• If the right of self-defence in such
a case is to be exercised in the
territory of another state, it must
be evident that that state is
unable or unwilling to deal with
the non-state actors itself, and
that it is necessary to use force
from outside to deal with the
threat in circumstances where the
consent of the territorial state
cannot be obtained.
• Force in self-defence directed
against the government of the
state in which the attacker is
found may be justified only in so
far as it is necessary to avert or
end the attack, but not otherwise.
It may be that the state is not responsible
for the acts of the terrorists, but it is
responsible for any failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent the use of its
territory as a base for attacks on other
states. Its inability to discharge the duty
does not relieve it of the duty.
Thus, where a state is unable or unwilling
to assert control over a terrorist
organisation located in its territory, the
state which is a victim of the terrorist
attacks would, as a last resort, be
permitted to act in self-defence against
the terrorist organisation in the state in
which it is located
For action in self-defence to be
‘necessary’, it must first be clear that
measures of law-enforcement would not
be sufficient.
To show the necessity of action against
the territory of another state not directly
responsible for the acts of the non-state
group requires, inter alia, the
demonstration that there is no other
means of meeting the attack and that this
way will do so.
The principles regarding the right of
self-defence form only a part of the
international regulation of the use
of force.
• Measures taken in the exercise of
the right of self-defence must be
reported immediately to the
Security Council. The Council
retains the right and responsibility
to authorise collective military
action to deal with actual or latent
threats.
• Any military action must conform
with the rules of international
humanitarian law governing the
conduct of hostilities.
-------------------------------------------------
deception, and operations security in
concert with specified supporting and
related capabilities, to influence, disrupt,
corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and
automated decision making while
protecting our own.
Computer network attacks, computer
network defense, and related computer
network exploitation enabling operations.
Operations to disrupt, deny, degrade, or
destroy information resident in
computers and computer networks, or
the computers and network themselves.
TWO TYPES OF CAN
1. Targeting the computer or
computer network
2. Those targeting the information
contained in the computer or
computer network.
Identification and Attribution
Problems
Uniformed hackers- several national
armies have already established cyber
units.
Would be imputable to the state of which
they are de jure organs.

Cyber Attacks Their conduct will be attributed to the

state provided the person or entity is
Traditionally Known as information acting in that capacity in the
operations particular instance.

“Information operations” are the Does not change if the hackers were
integrated employment of the core civilian, and not military organs of the
capabilities of electronic warfare, state.
computer network operations,
psychological operations, military
It could also be that the hackers are
members of government agencies or
parastatal entities, like privatized
corporations or independent contractors
empowered by law to exercise some
degree of governmental authority.
The hackers could also be not de jure
organs of a state but rather individuals or
corporations hired by states in order to
conduct cyber-attacks.
Cyber Attacks and the Prohibition of
the Threat and Use of Force in
International Relations
When attributed to a state, a cyber-
attack is a violation of the customary
principle of non-intervention “on matters
in which each state is permitted, by the
principle of state sovereignty, to decide
freely”
Threat of Force
An explicit or implicit promise, through
statements or actions, of a future and
unlawful use of armed force against one
or more states, the realization of which
depends on the threatener’s will.
Remedies Against Cyber Attacks
Resort to the UN Security Council
The UN charter and the council might
recommend the appropriate methods to
settle the dispute.
If the SC also establishes that the
situation amounts to a threat to the
peace, breach of peace, or act of
aggression, to could also exercise its
powers under Chapter vii.
Resort to an International Court
In order to obtain reparation for the
violation of Article 2 (4) and the principle
of non-intervention.
Request of an advisory opinion of the ICJ
on the legality of cyber-attacks in
accordance with article 96 of the UN
charter.
Retortions and Countermeasures
Could also adopt retortions and non-
military countermeasures against the
attacker.
The injured state could adopt them only
when the cyber operation is illegal under
international law, which is not the case,
for instance, of cyber espionage.
Use of Cyber Force Amounting to an
Armed Attack
The use of any device, or number of
devices, which results in a considerable
loss of life and/or extensive destruction
of property.
Critical Infrastructures
Systems and assets, whether physical or
virtual, so vital to the US that the
incapacity or destruction of such systems
and assets would have a deliberating
impact on security, national economic
security, national public health or safety,
or any combination of those matters.
Legal Requirements of the Reaction
in Self-defense against a Cyber
attack
Necessity
Means that the use of force is a means
of last resort and that all other available
means have failed or are likely to fail.
Proportionality
Immediacy
The ultimate purpose of self-defense is
not punishing the attacker, but rather
repelling the armed attack.
In the Case of Cyber Attacks, the
Imminent Character:
1. Depends on the intensity of the
attack
2. The target of the attack
3. The reaction time required to
successfully pre-emp the attack
4. The speed with which the damage
may move throughout the
computer networks.
5. The defensive reaction should also
be proportionate not the cyber-
attack, but rather to the overall
attack of which the cyber-attack is
a preliminary part.

THREE FACTORS MUST BE TAKEN

INTO ACCOUNT WHEN
ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT TO
RESPOND IN (ANTICIPATORY)
SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A CYBER
ATTACK THAT DOES NOT AMOUNT
IN ITSELF TO AN ARMED ATTACK:

1. The CAN is part of an

overall operation
culminating in armed
attack
2. The CAN is an irrevocable
step in an imminent (near-
term) and probably
unavoidable attack
3. The defender is reacting in
advance of the attack itself
during the last possible
window of opportunity
available to effectively
counter the attack.