Självförsvar mot icke-statlig organisation i annat land - En fråga om legalitet och legitimitet
(2016) LAGF03 20161Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats handlar om rätten för en stat att använda våld i självförsvar mot en icke-statlig organisation på en annan stats territorium. Förbud mot våldsanvändning råder både enligt FN-stadgan och internationell sedvänja. Att det finns ett undantag gällande självförsvar mot en annan stat råder det ingen tvekan om, men frågan är om detta undantag täcker även självförsvar mot en icke-statlig organisation på en annan stats territorium. En annan fråga som utreds i uppsatsen är huruvida ett sådant agerande verkligen kan legitimeras, oavsett om det är lagligt eller inte. Detta är intressant att undersöka på grund starka och mindre starka staters olika möjligheter att hävda sig på den internationella scenen. Måste en svagare stat vara beredd... (More)
- Denna uppsats handlar om rätten för en stat att använda våld i självförsvar mot en icke-statlig organisation på en annan stats territorium. Förbud mot våldsanvändning råder både enligt FN-stadgan och internationell sedvänja. Att det finns ett undantag gällande självförsvar mot en annan stat råder det ingen tvekan om, men frågan är om detta undantag täcker även självförsvar mot en icke-statlig organisation på en annan stats territorium. En annan fråga som utreds i uppsatsen är huruvida ett sådant agerande verkligen kan legitimeras, oavsett om det är lagligt eller inte. Detta är intressant att undersöka på grund starka och mindre starka staters olika möjligheter att hävda sig på den internationella scenen. Måste en svagare stat vara beredd att tåla att dess territoriella integritet kränks trots att staten ifråga inte angripit en annan stat?
Sedan terrorattackerna mot USA den 11 september 2001 har ovanstående typ av självförsvar diskuterats flitigt. Den juridiska diskussionen kan bland annat kopplas till den osäkerhet som frågan omgärdas av. Till att börja med är det oklart hur FN-stadgans reglering förhåller sig till sedvanerätten. I denna uppsats drar jag slutsatsen att stadgan får anses äga företräde på grund av dess relativa tydlighet i förhållande till sedvänjan. Artikel 51 i FN-stadgan – vilken handlar om rätten till självförsvar – hänvisar dock till ”the inherent right of (…) self-defense”. I detta arbete anförs att nämnda uttryck tar sikte på sedvanerätten, varför den aktualiseras trots stadgans företräde.
Jag kommer fram till att sedvanerätten tillåter en kraftig kringskuren rätt till ovanstående sorts självförsvar. Detta baseras i grund och botten på nödvändigheten av ett sådant förfarande. Med stöd bland annat av en jämförande undersökning anförs också att samma rätt kan legitimeras, också med hänvisning till nödvändigheten. (Less) - Abstract
- This is a thesis on the right of a state to use force in self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state. The trans-border use of force is prohibited both according to the charter of the United Nations and according to international customary law. There is however no controversy regarding the fact that self-defence against another state is an exemption to this rule, but it is unclear whether this covers self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state or not. This thesis also examines the legitimacy of such an action, legal or not. The legitimacy is an interesting question as different states have different possibilities to take international actions. Should a weaker state have... (More)
- This is a thesis on the right of a state to use force in self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state. The trans-border use of force is prohibited both according to the charter of the United Nations and according to international customary law. There is however no controversy regarding the fact that self-defence against another state is an exemption to this rule, but it is unclear whether this covers self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state or not. This thesis also examines the legitimacy of such an action, legal or not. The legitimacy is an interesting question as different states have different possibilities to take international actions. Should a weaker state have to accept certain violations of its territorial integrity even though the state itself has not used force against another country?
Since the terrorist acts against the USA on the 11th of September in 2001 the aforementioned right of self-defence has been widely discussed, not only because of the violence used but also because of the fact that the rules of self-defence are unclear. To begin with, the hierarchy of the sources is unclear. My conclusion brought forward in this thesis is that the charter prevails because of the relative clarity of written law, compared to customary law. Article 51 of the charter – which contains the right of self-defence – refer to an inherent right of self-defence. I see this as a reference to customary law and therefore customary law is relevant no matter the hierarchy of the sources.
My conclusion is that international customary law contains a most limited right of self-defence against a non-state actor, mainly due to the potential necessity of such action. The thesis also contains a comparative perspective on the matter of legitimacy and the conclusion is that the legitimacy of this kind of self-defence is also dependent on its necessity. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8874238
- author
- Hallberg, Axel LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt, public international law, självförsvar, self-defence, icke-stat, non-state, legitim, legitimate
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8874238
- date added to LUP
- 2016-07-04 09:31:17
- date last changed
- 2016-07-04 09:31:17
@misc{8874238,
abstract = {{This is a thesis on the right of a state to use force in self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state. The trans-border use of force is prohibited both according to the charter of the United Nations and according to international customary law. There is however no controversy regarding the fact that self-defence against another state is an exemption to this rule, but it is unclear whether this covers self-defence against a non-state organization on the territory of another state or not. This thesis also examines the legitimacy of such an action, legal or not. The legitimacy is an interesting question as different states have different possibilities to take international actions. Should a weaker state have to accept certain violations of its territorial integrity even though the state itself has not used force against another country?
Since the terrorist acts against the USA on the 11th of September in 2001 the aforementioned right of self-defence has been widely discussed, not only because of the violence used but also because of the fact that the rules of self-defence are unclear. To begin with, the hierarchy of the sources is unclear. My conclusion brought forward in this thesis is that the charter prevails because of the relative clarity of written law, compared to customary law. Article 51 of the charter – which contains the right of self-defence – refer to an inherent right of self-defence. I see this as a reference to customary law and therefore customary law is relevant no matter the hierarchy of the sources.
My conclusion is that international customary law contains a most limited right of self-defence against a non-state actor, mainly due to the potential necessity of such action. The thesis also contains a comparative perspective on the matter of legitimacy and the conclusion is that the legitimacy of this kind of self-defence is also dependent on its necessity.}},
author = {{Hallberg, Axel}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Självförsvar mot icke-statlig organisation i annat land - En fråga om legalitet och legitimitet}},
year = {{2016}},
}