Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The drafters’ intent was that collective force approved and organized by the Security Council would substitute for unilateral uses of force by states. [1] 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 action, and they insisted upon inserting into the Charter an explicit right of self defense.
The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. [1] The UN Charter reads in article 2(4): . 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.
Based on the charter, the 1970 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 explicitly endorsed a right to resist "subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation". [32] Based on this, many scholars argue that the right to resist exists in customary international law where self-determination is at issue. [33]
The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of ...
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 measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Many scholars believe the Article 51 self-defense is only available to states.
Although not explicitly stated in the UN Charter, the conventional view is that only state actors can commit aggression. [78] Although self-defense is an exception to the prohibition of force, claims of preventive self-defense are largely rejected, while claims of pre-emptive self defense are "more well-founded". [79]
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. [4]
Self-defense (self-defence primarily in Commonwealth English) is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. [1] The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions. [2]