Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Rätten till självförsvar - När en grupps väpnade attack är hänförbar till en stat

Taivassalo, Walter Neil Gordon LU (2024) LAGF03 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen handlar om en oklarhet i rätten till självförsvar enligt FN-stadgan, nämligen när en väpnad attack utförd av en grupp som inte är en del av en stats reguljära armé ändå kan vara hänförbar till den staten ge-nom internationella hänförbarhetsregler.
Den relevanta rätten för att avgöra om en väpnad attack är hänförbar till en stat är FN-stadgan, ARSIWA, och internationella domstolars rättspraxis, huvudsakligen fallen Nicaragua och Tadić. Alla dessa speglar även inter-nationell sedvanerätt, som också tillämpas i rättsfallen.
I fallen Nicaragua och Tadić utvecklas en metod för att avgöra hänförbar-heten för väpnade gruppers väpnade attacker mot stater. Dessa kallas i lit-teraturen för de jure- och de facto-testen. De jure-testet... (More)
Uppsatsen handlar om en oklarhet i rätten till självförsvar enligt FN-stadgan, nämligen när en väpnad attack utförd av en grupp som inte är en del av en stats reguljära armé ändå kan vara hänförbar till den staten ge-nom internationella hänförbarhetsregler.
Den relevanta rätten för att avgöra om en väpnad attack är hänförbar till en stat är FN-stadgan, ARSIWA, och internationella domstolars rättspraxis, huvudsakligen fallen Nicaragua och Tadić. Alla dessa speglar även inter-nationell sedvanerätt, som också tillämpas i rättsfallen.
I fallen Nicaragua och Tadić utvecklas en metod för att avgöra hänförbar-heten för väpnade gruppers väpnade attacker mot stater. Dessa kallas i lit-teraturen för de jure- och de facto-testen. De jure-testet görs för att avgöra om gruppen genom lag, och särskilt då genom statens egna strukturer och regler är ett myndighetsorgan eller en del av ett myndighetsorgan. De jure-testet är ofta lättare att avgöra så länge man har tillräcklig bevisning, och ger direkt en hänförbarhet till staten i fråga. De facto-testet är lite mer komplicerat, och går ut på att försöka visa hänförbarhet genom att gruppen var under statens ledning eller kontroll på ett sätt så att deras ageranden kan anses vara de facto hänförbara till staten.
Domstolarna i Nicaragua och Tadić tillämpar kravet på kontroll på olika sätt. I Nicaragua anser domstolen att det krävs att staten utövar en effektiv kontroll över styrkorna, som utöver finansiellt och materiellt stöd innebär att de måste ha beordrat eller instruerat specifika handlingar som gruppen utfört för att dessa ska kunna anses vara hänförbara till staten. I Tadić sän-ker domstolen ribban för större militära grupper, och menar att det för dem endast krävs en generell kontroll, vilket innebär att det utöver finansiellt och materiellt stöd räcker med att staten har bidragit gruppen med plane-ring och hjälp av gruppens generella organisation och målsättning.
Exakt var denna gräns mellan grupperna går är fortfarande oklart i praxis men metoderna i Nicaragua och Tadić går ändå att tillämpa genom en samlad bedömning, och lämnar även utrymme för flexibilitet som mycket väl kan behövas inom ett rättsområde som är så ständigt förändrande. (Less)
Abstract
This essay aims to clear up the obscurity of the right to self-defense in the Charter of the United Nations, and more precisely when an armed attack committed by a group that is not part of a state’s regular army is attributa-ble to the state in question by the rules of attribution in international law.
The relevant legal sources for deciding whether an armed attack committed by a group is attributable to a state or not are the Charter of the United Na-tions, ARSIWA, and the case law of international courts, mainly the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić. All of these also reflect international customary law, which is also applied in these cases.
In the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić the courts developed a method for deciding the... (More)
This essay aims to clear up the obscurity of the right to self-defense in the Charter of the United Nations, and more precisely when an armed attack committed by a group that is not part of a state’s regular army is attributa-ble to the state in question by the rules of attribution in international law.
The relevant legal sources for deciding whether an armed attack committed by a group is attributable to a state or not are the Charter of the United Na-tions, ARSIWA, and the case law of international courts, mainly the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić. All of these also reflect international customary law, which is also applied in these cases.
In the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić the courts developed a method for deciding the attributability of armed groups armed attacks against states. In literature these are called the de jure-test and the de facto-test. The de jure-test is done to decide if a group, by rule of law and the state’s own struc-tures and rules, is to be considered an agent of the state or a state organ. The de jure-test is usually easier to determine as long as there is adequate proof, and immediately gives attribution to the state in question. The de facto-test is a bit more complicated. With the de facto-test, the court judg-es if attribution can be found by way of the group being under a state’s direction or control in a way in which their actions can be considered of being de-facto attributable to the state.
In Nicaragua the court deemed it mandatory for the state to have effective control over the armed forces, which meant that including financial and material support given to the group, the state also had to have issued spe-cific instructions concerning every one piece of the unlawful actions made by the group for those actions to be considered attributable to the state. In Tadić the court lowers the bar for attribution of larger military groups’ actions, so that a state only needs to exercise general control over the group instead of effective control. This means that including financial and material support to the group, it is enough for the state to have a role in organizing, coordinating, or planning the military actions of the group.
Exactly where the line is drawn between the smaller groups in Nicaragua and the larger groups in Tadić is still uncertain. However, using the meth-ods introduced in Nicaragua and Tadić it is possible to make do an overall assessment of which rules to use, while also permitting flexibility which is very necessary in this field of law that is so forever changing. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Taivassalo, Walter Neil Gordon LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20241
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
folkrätt, statsrätt
language
Swedish
id
9152363
date added to LUP
2024-06-26 12:26:20
date last changed
2024-06-26 12:26:20
@misc{9152363,
  abstract     = {{This essay aims to clear up the obscurity of the right to self-defense in the Charter of the United Nations, and more precisely when an armed attack committed by a group that is not part of a state’s regular army is attributa-ble to the state in question by the rules of attribution in international law. 
The relevant legal sources for deciding whether an armed attack committed by a group is attributable to a state or not are the Charter of the United Na-tions, ARSIWA, and the case law of international courts, mainly the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić. All of these also reflect international customary law, which is also applied in these cases. 
 In the cases of Nicaragua and Tadić the courts developed a method for deciding the attributability of armed groups armed attacks against states. In literature these are called the de jure-test and the de facto-test. The de jure-test is done to decide if a group, by rule of law and the state’s own struc-tures and rules, is to be considered an agent of the state or a state organ. The de jure-test is usually easier to determine as long as there is adequate proof, and immediately gives attribution to the state in question. The de facto-test is a bit more complicated. With the de facto-test, the court judg-es if attribution can be found by way of the group being under a state’s direction or control in a way in which their actions can be considered of being de-facto attributable to the state. 
In Nicaragua the court deemed it mandatory for the state to have effective control over the armed forces, which meant that including financial and material support given to the group, the state also had to have issued spe-cific instructions concerning every one piece of the unlawful actions made by the group for those actions to be considered attributable to the state. In Tadić the court lowers the bar for attribution of larger military groups’ actions, so that a state only needs to exercise general control over the group instead of effective control. This means that including financial and material support to the group, it is enough for the state to have a role in organizing, coordinating, or planning the military actions of the group. 
Exactly where the line is drawn between the smaller groups in Nicaragua and the larger groups in Tadić is still uncertain. However, using the meth-ods introduced in Nicaragua and Tadić it is possible to make do an overall assessment of which rules to use, while also permitting flexibility which is very necessary in this field of law that is so forever changing.}},
  author       = {{Taivassalo, Walter Neil Gordon}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Rätten till självförsvar - När en grupps väpnade attack är hänförbar till en stat}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}