International Law

International Law

In the given scenario, the situation in Lilliput has dramatically changed; first they had a civil disorder which led to the police and army withdrawing from the territory. Then, the elected assembly in Lilliput declared its independence and applied for membership of the United Nations. Following which, troops from Yudonia entered Lilliput, and reasserted control over the province. Following the military operation by Yudonia, the neighbouring state Zackstralia sent its troops across the border into Lilliput, driving the military forces of Yudonia out of Lilliput. The government of Lilliput subsequently operated independently under the military protection of Zackstralia. The Yudonia is in the State of War. Namely, in violation with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, the Zackstralia has used force against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Yudonia, thus forcing Yudonia to act in self-defence in accordance with requirements given in article 51 of the UN Charter. It is also contended, that Yudonia is in situation of an international armed conflict with the Zackstralia which is governed by the relevant rules of the International Humanitarian Law.

UN Charter Article 51 is not the only UN sanction of self-defense to be disregarded by the ICJ. The Court also chooses to ignore a number of highly relevant United Nations Resolutions, passed by the General Assembly and the Security Council, addressing the legitimate and lawful use of force in self-defense by Member States.

For instance, the rationale behind General Assembly Resolution 3314 - “Definition of Aggression” - is highly relevant to the case at hand. It states:

“Convinced that the adoption of a definition of aggression ought to have the effect of deterring a potential aggressor, would simplify the determination of acts of aggression and the implementation of measures to suppress them and would also facilitate the protection of the rights and lawful interests of, and the rendering of assistance to the victim”

It is relevant at this juncture to recall again Judge Lauterpacht's explanation on this important issue, a point also cited by Schwebel in his writing:

“Territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the 'unlawful' use of force. But to omit the word 'unlawful' is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”

That is, there are situations involving lawful use of force and there are lawful occupations in the course of repelling aggression. Article 51 addresses the right to self-defense and the lawful use of force when one faces an aggressor.

The Security Council is the only UN body authorized to label a Member State (or non-State entity) an aggressor. In the Preamble of Resolution 3314 (“Definition of ...