Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ovillig- eller oförmögendoktrinen – en ny tolkning av självförsvarsrätten eller en illegitim grund för våld?

Rameld, Anna LU (2021) LAGF03 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Våldsförbudet är en av folkrättens mest fundamentala regleringar och förbjuder allt mellanstatligt våld. Ett av undantagen till våldsförbudet är självförsvarsrätten som ger stater som blir utsatta för ett väpnat angrepp en rätt till självförsvar. En mycket omdebatterad fråga inom folkrätten är om självförsvarsrätten inte bara skall gälla mot en annan stat, utan även mot icke-statliga aktörer. En del av frågans problematik är den till självförsvarsrätten motstående principen om statssuveränitet som bland annat innebär att en stat inte får ingripa i en annan stat utan samtycke från den andra staten. Möjligheten till laglighet av självförsvar mot icke-statliga aktörer skapar således en spänning mellan självförsvarsrätten och... (More)
Våldsförbudet är en av folkrättens mest fundamentala regleringar och förbjuder allt mellanstatligt våld. Ett av undantagen till våldsförbudet är självförsvarsrätten som ger stater som blir utsatta för ett väpnat angrepp en rätt till självförsvar. En mycket omdebatterad fråga inom folkrätten är om självförsvarsrätten inte bara skall gälla mot en annan stat, utan även mot icke-statliga aktörer. En del av frågans problematik är den till självförsvarsrätten motstående principen om statssuveränitet som bland annat innebär att en stat inte får ingripa i en annan stat utan samtycke från den andra staten. Möjligheten till laglighet av självförsvar mot icke-statliga aktörer skapar således en spänning mellan självförsvarsrätten och statssuveräniteten.

Frågan blev alltmer aktuell efter de militära aktioner som igångsattes mot terroristorganisationen al-Qaida efter terrorattentaten mot USA den 11 september 2001. Aktionerna fick ett generellt stöd från världssamfundet men hur denna händelse har påverkat rättsläget i stort är ännu oklart. Frågan har även nyligen aktualiserats i samband med de militära ingripandena som vidtagits mot IS i Syrien. Ett försök till att definiera utvecklingen av självförsvarsrättens omfattning, som bland annat åberopats vid ingripandena i Syrien, är ovillig- eller oförmögendoktrinen. Doktrinen innebär att det är legitimt att utnyttja sin självförsvarsrätt mot en icke-statlig aktör om den stat, vari aktören är verksam, själv är ovillig eller oförmögen att agera mot aktören.

Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda den senaste utvecklingen av självförsvarsrätten, specifikt genom ovillig- eller oförmögendoktrinen. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att undersöka hur doktrinens utveckling har påverkat relationen mellan självförsvarsrätten och statssuveräniteten. Slutsatsen i denna uppsats är att det har skett en utvidgning av självförsvarsrätten, men att det ännu inte går att tillskriva ovillig- eller oförmögendoktrinen sedvanerättslig status. Doktrinen erhåller därmed ännu inte den status som krävs för att mer permanent förändra innebörden av så fundamentala principer som självförsvarsrätten och statssuveräniteten. (Less)
Abstract
One of the most fundamental regulations in international law is the prohibition on the use of force, which forbids all violence between states. The right to self-defence is one of the exceptions to the prohibition and gives states that have been victims of an armed attack a right to self-defence. A much-debated question within international law is if the right to self-defence should be applicable not just against another state, but also against a non-state actor. Part of the question’s complexity is the principle of state sovereignty, which entails that a state is prohibited to intervene in another state without consent from the other state. The possibility of lawful self-defence against a non-state actor thus creates a tension between the... (More)
One of the most fundamental regulations in international law is the prohibition on the use of force, which forbids all violence between states. The right to self-defence is one of the exceptions to the prohibition and gives states that have been victims of an armed attack a right to self-defence. A much-debated question within international law is if the right to self-defence should be applicable not just against another state, but also against a non-state actor. Part of the question’s complexity is the principle of state sovereignty, which entails that a state is prohibited to intervene in another state without consent from the other state. The possibility of lawful self-defence against a non-state actor thus creates a tension between the right to self-defence and state sovereignty.

The question became even more prevalent after the military actions composed against the terrorist organisation al-Qaida after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11th September 2001. The military actions received overall support from the international community, but it is not yet clear what impact the actions have had on the general legal position in international law. The question was raised anew regarding the combat against the terror organisation ISIL in the Middle East. One of the attempts to define the expansion of the right to self-defence is the unwilling or unable doctrine. Most recently the doctrine was invoked regarding the military actions taken against ISIL in Syria. The doctrine stipulates a right to self-defence for a state against a non-state actor if the state, wherein the actor is located, itself is unwilling or unable to prevent the actor’s attacks.

It is the purpose of this essay to examine the latest development on the scope of the right to self-defence through the practise of the unwilling or unable doctrine. Furthermore, the thesis aims to examine how this development has affected the right to self-defence in relation to state sovereignty. The conclusion in this essay is that the scope of the right to self-defence has been expanded, but that the unwilling or unable doctrine does not yet attain the status of binding international customary law. Thus, the doctrine does not yet have the possibility to permanently alter such fundamental principles in international law as the right to self-defence and state sovereignty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rameld, Anna LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20211
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
folkrätt, public international law, självförsvar, self-defence
language
Swedish
id
9044858
date added to LUP
2021-06-29 16:37:47
date last changed
2021-06-29 16:37:47
@misc{9044858,
  abstract     = {{One of the most fundamental regulations in international law is the prohibition on the use of force, which forbids all violence between states. The right to self-defence is one of the exceptions to the prohibition and gives states that have been victims of an armed attack a right to self-defence. A much-debated question within international law is if the right to self-defence should be applicable not just against another state, but also against a non-state actor. Part of the question’s complexity is the principle of state sovereignty, which entails that a state is prohibited to intervene in another state without consent from the other state. The possibility of lawful self-defence against a non-state actor thus creates a tension between the right to self-defence and state sovereignty.

The question became even more prevalent after the military actions composed against the terrorist organisation al-Qaida after the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11th September 2001. The military actions received overall support from the international community, but it is not yet clear what impact the actions have had on the general legal position in international law. The question was raised anew regarding the combat against the terror organisation ISIL in the Middle East. One of the attempts to define the expansion of the right to self-defence is the unwilling or unable doctrine. Most recently the doctrine was invoked regarding the military actions taken against ISIL in Syria. The doctrine stipulates a right to self-defence for a state against a non-state actor if the state, wherein the actor is located, itself is unwilling or unable to prevent the actor’s attacks. 

It is the purpose of this essay to examine the latest development on the scope of the right to self-defence through the practise of the unwilling or unable doctrine. Furthermore, the thesis aims to examine how this development has affected the right to self-defence in relation to state sovereignty. The conclusion in this essay is that the scope of the right to self-defence has been expanded, but that the unwilling or unable doctrine does not yet attain the status of binding international customary law. Thus, the doctrine does not yet have the possibility to permanently alter such fundamental principles in international law as the right to self-defence and state sovereignty.}},
  author       = {{Rameld, Anna}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Ovillig- eller oförmögendoktrinen – en ny tolkning av självförsvarsrätten eller en illegitim grund för våld?}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}