Make a Submission
No. 3 (177) (2008)
Artykuły

Napaść zbrojna w prawie międzynarodowym - w poszukiwaniu współczesnej definicji

[Armed attack in international law - in search of contemporary definition]

  • Michał Kowalski
Michał Kowalski
Jagiellonian University

Published 2008-04-29

Keywords

  • international responsibility,
  • International Court of Justice (ICJ),
  • Charter of the United Nations,
  • armed conflict
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Napaść zbrojna w prawie międzynarodowym - w poszukiwaniu współczesnej definicji: [Armed attack in international law - in search of contemporary definition]. (2008). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 3 (177), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2008.3.3

Abstract

The text analyses one of the key notions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, namely the armed attack notion. The interpretation of this notion-which still misses the generally accepted definition-is of crucial significance as it de termines the scope of the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which together with the collective security system create the only two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of armed force in international law. The notion is interpreted in relation to the use of force notion and the act of aggression notion. The understanding of the armed attack notion as the gravest form of the use of force is challenged. Also, the problem of the source of an armed attack is ana lysed. It is submitted that non-state actors themselves may not be perceived as a source of an armed attack. However, the standards relating to the attribution of non-state actors' military actions to states should be extended. In general, the pre sented interpretative approach towards defining the armed attack notion shows that it is indeed possible to interpret the jus ad bellum norms in such a manner as to, on the one hand, carefully adjust them to new threats in order to let states respond individually more adequately, but, on the other hand, to remain within the framework of the UN Charter and keep all the system safeguards.

References

  1. Bruha T., Tams C.J, Self-Defence Against Terrorist Attacks. Considerations in the Light of the ICJ ś ‘Israeli Wall’ Opinion, [w:] K. Dicke i in. (red.), Weltinnenrecht: Liber amicorum Jost Delbruck, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2005.
  2. Cassese A., The Nicaragua and Tadic Tests Revisited in Light of the ICJ Judgement on Genocide in Bośnia, „European Journal of Intemational Law” 2007, t. 18.
  3. Czapliński W., Interwencja w Iraku z punktu widzenia prawa międzynarodowego, „Państwo i Prawo” 2004, nr 1, s. 18-34.
  4. Czapliński W., Kodyfikacja prawa o odpowiedzialności międzynarodowej państw, „Studia Prawnicze” 2002, z. 4, s. 33-53.
  5. Czapliński W., Reforma ONZ - zasady użycia siły zbrojnej w stosunkach międzynarodowych, [w:] J. Symonides (red.), Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych - bilans i perspektywy, Wydawnictwo Naukowe "Scholar", Warszawa 2006.
  6. Czapliński W., Wyrozumska A., Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne: zagadnienia systemowe, wyd. 2, Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, Warszawa 2004.
  7. Definition of Aggression, A/RES/3314(XXIX), UN. General Assembly, [w:] Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during its 29th session. Volume 1, 17 September-18 December 1974. - A/9631. - 1975. - p. 142-144.
  8. Dinstein Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence, wyd. 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005.
  9. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, „Yearbook of the International Law Commission” 2001, t. II, cz. II.
  10. Frankowska M., Zbrodnia agresji w Rzymskim Statucie Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego, [w:] J. Menkes (red.), Prawo międzynarodowe. Księga pamiątkowa prof. Renaty Szafarz, Oficyna Wydawnicza Wyższej Szkoły Handlu i Prawa im. Ryszarda Łazarskiego, Warszawa 2007.
  11. Frowein J.A., Krisch N., Article 39, [w:] B. Simma (red.), Charter of the United Nations, wyd. 2, Berlin 2002.
  12. Frowein J.A., Reactions by Not Directly Affected States to Breaches of Public International Law, „Recueil des Cours de FAcademie de Droit International” 1994, t. 248.
  13. Gardam J., Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
  14. Gazzini T., The changing rules on the use of force in international law, Manchester University Press, Manchester 2005.
  15. Glennon M.J., How International Rules Die, „Georgetown Law Journal” 2005,t. 93.
  16. Glennon M.J., Military Action against Terrorists under International Law. The Fog of Law. Self-Defense, Inherence and Incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, „Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy” 2002, t. 25.
  17. Gray Ch., International Law and the Use of Forces, wyd. 3, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
  18. Hargrove J.L., The Nicaragua Judgement and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defence, „American Journal of International Law” 1987, t. 81.
  19. Higgins R., Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It, Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1994.
  20. Informal intersessional meeting of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, held at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, United States, from 11 to 14 June 2007, ICC-ASP/6/SWGCA/INF.
  21. Institut de Droit International, Tenth Commission, Present Problems of the Use of Armed Force in International law, A. Self-defence, Resolution of 27 October 2007, Santiago 2007, http://www.idi-iil.org [dostęp: 15.04.2008].
  22. Kranz J., Użycie siły zbrojnej a odpowiedzialność międzynarodowoprawna w świetle najnowszego orzecznictwa MTS, [w:] J. Menkes (red.), Prawo międzynarodowe. Księga pamiątkowa prof. Renaty Szafarz, Oficyna Wydawnicza Wyższej Szkoły Handlu i Prawa im. Ryszarda Łazarskiego, Warszawa 2007.
  23. Kranz J., Wojna, pokój czy uspokajanie? Współczesne dylematy użycia siły zbrojnej, Fundacja Centrum Stosunków Międzynarodowych, Warszawa 2006.
  24. Krisch N., Selbstverteidigung und kollektive Sicherheit, Springer, Berlin 2001.
  25. Kwiecień R., Suwerenność państwa. Rekonstrukcja i znaczenie idei w prawie międzynarodowym, "Zakamycze", Kraków 2004.
  26. Oellers-Frahm K., The International Court of Justice and Article 51 of the UN Charter, [w:] K. Dicke i in. (red.), Weltinnenrecht: Liber amicorum Jost Delbruck, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2005.
  27. Opinia MTS z 8 lipca 1996 w sprawie Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1996.
  28. Opinia MTS z 9 lipca 2004 r. w sprawie Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2004.
  29. Orakhelashvili A., Legal Stability and Claims of Change. The International Court’s Treatment of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2006, t. 75.
  30. Parlamentarne upoważnienie do użycia siły zbrojnej przeciwko PKK z 17 października 2007, Karar No. 903, http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/tbmm_kararlari/karar903.html [dostęp: 15.04.2008].
  31. Raab D., ‘Armed Attack’ after the Oil Platforms Case, „Leiden Journal of International Law” 2004, t. 17.
  32. Randelzhofer A., Article 51, [w:] B. Simma (red.), Charter of the United Nations, wyd. 2, Berlin 2002.
  33. Report of 13 December 2007 of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, ICC-ASP/6/SWGCA/1.
  34. Report of 31 January 2007 of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, ICCASP/5/SWGCA/3.
  35. Resolution of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States, OAE/Ser.G CP/RES. 930 (1632/08) z 5.03.2008 r., http://www.oas.org/consejo/resolutions/res930.asp [15.04.2008].
  36. Rezolucja Zgromadzenia Ogólnego ONZ z 6 grudnia 2007 r., General Assembly Resolution on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/RES/62/61.
  37. Stahn C., ‘Nicaragua is dead, long live Nicaragua’- the Right to Self-defence under Art. 51 UN Charter and International Terrorism, [w:] Ch. Walter i in. (red.), Terrorism as a Challenge for National and International Law. Security versus Liberty?, Springer, Berlin 2004.
  38. Stahn C., Terrorists Acts as '‘Armed Attack". The Right to Self-Defense, Article 51 (½) of the UN Charter, and International Terrorism, „The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs” 2003, t. 27.
  39. Symonides J., Wojna z Irakiem a prawo międzynarodowe, „Rocznik Strategiczny” 2003/2004.
  40. Weisbord N., Prosecuting Aggression, „Harvard International Law Journal” 2008, t. 49.
  41. Wyrok MTKJ z 15 lipca 1999 w sprawie Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm [dostęp: 15.04.2008].
  42. Wyrok MTS z 19 grudnia 2005 r. w sprawie Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2005.
  43. Wyrok MTS z 26 listopada 1984 r. w sprawie Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 1986.
  44. Wyrok MTS z 26 lutego 2007 w sprawie Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2007.
  45. Wyrok MTS z 6 listopada 2003 r. w sprawie Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders 2003.
  46. Zimmermann A., The Second Lebanon War. Jus ad bellum, jus in bello and the Issue of Proportionality, „Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law” 2007, t. 11.