Question
“Only with less selectivity, and more consistency and accountability will international law no
longer languish as imperial power masquerading as law but fulfil its promise as a genuine
means of holding states to the rules they created and pledged to obey. If we expect Russia and
China to be law-abiding, we must also look in the mirror.”

(Saul)

Discuss with reference to the international law on the use of force.
Reading List:
Bannelier, K, “Military Interventions Against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Libya and the Legal
Basis of Consent” (2016) 29(3) Leiden Journal of International Law 743. Also available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2772474

ANSWER

Public International Law

Following the assigned statement, it is apparent that the application of international law is
selective and inconsistent, particularly concerning the use of force. It has led to a lack of
credibility and effectiveness in the global legal system. It implies that some states, particularly
those with significant imperial or hegemonic power, have used international law to further their
interests rather than as a simple tool for upholding the rules and principles agreed upon by the
international community. This selective application of international law has led to a lack of trust
and confidence in the system. It has undermined its potential to contribute to global peace,
security, and stability. The manner in which force is applied in the international law remains a
highly controversial and sensitive issue, as it can have significant consequences for peace,
security, and stability in the global community. 1 While the United Nations Charter sets out clear
rules and policies regulating the use or application of force, the selective and inconsistent
application of these rules has led to a lack of trust and confidence in the international legal
system. In essence, the demanding and unpredictable application of the regulations on the use of
force in international relations undermines the credibility and effectiveness of international law.
It has significant consequences for global peace, security, and stability.
According to Article 2(4) of the Charter, Nations are prohibited from applying against
any other country’s political independence state's and or territorial integrity. This prohibition is
considered a cornerstone of international peace and security, and it is one of the few absolute
prohibitions in international law. 2 However, there are two exceptions to this prohibition on the
use of force: self-defense and the authorization of the use of force by the United Nations Security
Council. Article 51 of the Charter allows states to use power in self-defense against an armed
1 Cohen, A, “Syria - International Use of Force and Humanitarian Intervention” in ed Khen, H, Boms, N and
Ashraph S, The Syrian War: Between Justice and Political Reality Chapter 2 (2019, Cambridge University Press).
2 McMahon, J. The Use of Force in International Law 1 (N.D.)

3
attack, but only until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to maintain
international peace and security. 3 The Security Council, through its Chapter VII powers, also has
the authority to authorize the use of force to restore international peace and security.
While the rules and principles outlined in the Charter provide a framework for using
force in international law, their application has been inconsistent and selective. Some states have
used the exceptions provided in the Charter to justify military interventions that are not truly
self-defense or authorized by the Security Council. In some cases, these interventions have been
motivated by imperial or hegemonic interests rather than a genuine desire to restore peace and
security. One example of this selective application of the rules on the use of force is the military
intervention in Iraq in 2003. 4 The United States and its allies justified the intervention in self-
defense against the alleged threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. 5 However, the
absence of clear evidence of such weapons and the lack of Security Council authorization for the
use of force cast doubt on the legality of the intervention.
Another example is the military intervention in Libya in 2011, which the Security
Council authorized through Resolution 1973. 6 The intervention was justified on the grounds of
protecting civilians from the threat of harm by the Libyan government. While the intervention
may have been well-intentioned, it has been criticized for going beyond the resolution's mandate
and leading to the overthrow of the Libyan government. 7 The selective and inconsistent
application of the rules on the use of force undermines the credibility and effectiveness of
international law. Suppose states can use the exceptions provided in the Charter to justify...

Order with Clue Writers to get an Essay Customized for you by cluewriters