International Use of Military Force

In current international law, the basis for use of military force by one state against another is found in article two and article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Although these articles reference state to state use of force the ultimate authority when it comes to an assessment of whether a state's use of force against another is justified is the UN Security Council. The Security Council is also the enforcing authority of international law regarding use of force on the international stage.

Article two of the UN Charter is fairly explicit regarding use of force issues. Article two states, “All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...” and further states, “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...” (UN Charter, Article 2). The use of force seems well enough defined in article two and seems to permit little variance from the standard of peace. Article 51, however, permits some exceptions: “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” (UN Charter, Article 51). This title is problematic to some extent in that it permits self defense but does not define the extent to which force may be used as a means of self defense. Article 51 further explains that when a state engages in the use of force as a means of self defense, it is required by the UN Charter to immediately report the incident to the Security Council which will then determine whether or not the force was justified.

This lack of clarity poses problems for states such as Israel when responding to the repeated assault on its civilians by Hamas insurgents. Relatively few Israelis may be injured or killed as a result of the assault, but Israel, based on article 51, may use “force” to defend itself. The level of force Israel may use is not specified, so Israel is free to use its own judgment in determining the best response. Of course, following the incident, Israel is at the mercy of the Security Council to determine whether or not the use of force was justified.

The Security Council is inconsistent when interpreting use of force issues. A great deal of politicking is involved and inasmuch as the issue of interpretation is solely in the hands of the Security Council, offending or defending entity may be justly or unjustly treated based on the members of the council at that time. The Council's five permanent members also have universal veto power. Any one of the five may veto a resolution unilaterally, making that specific issue moot, with nothing further to do on it. The result is a UN Security Council which is very much a barking dog with no teeth. Every action the council takes must have total unanimity among the five permanent members or whatever the issue, someone is bound to veto. This of course was built in as a means of protecting the five great powers of the post World War II world. Any one of the five could not very well have the UN Security Council passing resolutions which would be harmful to that member's constituency.

The use of force in international scenarios is regulated by the articles two and 51 of the UN Charter and largely limited to matters of self defense. The Security Council may vote to use force to enforce international law as it deems necessary. The UN Security Council is the enforcement apparatus of the UN and is responsible for maintenance of peace and security in international matters.



United Nations. Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I, Article 2. June 26, 1945. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml. (accessed November 14, 2009).

United Nations. Charter of the United Nations: Chapter VII, Article 51. June 26, 1945. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml. (accessed November 14, 2009).