• Citer

Self-defence against Terrorists : What can be learned from recent practice (2005-2010)?

par Corten, Olivier
Référence Kokusaihō gaikō zassi, 109, 2010, page (129-152)
Publication Publié, 2010

Article révisé par les pairs

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Statistiques

Titre:	Self-defence against Terrorists : What can be learned from recent practice (2005-2010)?
Auteur:	Corten, Olivier
Informations sur la publication:	Kokusaihō gaikō zassi, 109, 2010, page (129-152)
Statut de publication:	Publié, 2010
Sujet CREF:	Droit international public
Mots-clés:	Jus contra bellum - Self-Defence - Non State Actors
Note générale:	In 2005, the majority of States refused to envisage any relaxing of the prohibition on the use of force, by stating that the relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter ‘should not be re-written or re-interpreted’ and are ‘sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security’. The aim of this contribution was to test these statements in view of subsequent practice. Scholars who argue that the necessities of the fight against terrorism has led to an evolution of the jus contra bellum sometimes point to precedents like the Lebanon War (2006), the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia (2007), the Turkish Operation in Northern Iraq (February 2008) or the Colombian incursion in Ecuador (March 2008). However, these precedents’ —as the one of ‘Operation Cast Lead’— interpretation proves difficult because of the division among States and the very imprecise character of their discourses, particularly when it comes to the intervening States themselves. In this context, it would be an overstatement to say that the international community of States as a whole has radically modified the legal position it clearly expressed in 2005. This does not preclude a de lege ferenda reflection, addressing the problem of a State victim of a terrorist attack which cannot be attributed to another State in application of the established rules. In this regard, it can be pointed out that the definition of aggression leaves open another possibility, the ‘substantial involvement’ hypothesis, which was curiously not used —and sometimes even ignored altogether— at this stage in existing case-law.
Langue:	Anglais
Identificateurs:	urn:issn:0023-2866