so friends now lets come towards subjective part. this part can be solved only through discussion. so all those who visit this thread are requested to participate as well. any input for the first question of part II ???

Q.2 Does the customary international law grant the right to use force to a state in response to a terrorist attack on it? Substantiate your answer by arguing from Article 51 and Paragraph 4 of the Article 2 of the UN Charter and other recent examples in this regard.

Q.2 Does the customary international law grant the right to use force to a state in response to a terrorist attack on it? Substantiate your answer by arguing from Article 51 and Paragraph 4 of the Article 2 of the UN Charter and other recent examples in this regard.


its not all that straight forward as it seems to be in the first glance as the matter in question is about the right of a state , under international law, to use force in response to a terrorist attack and not an attack by another state. A terrorist attack is usually carried on by non state actors.
There could be multitude of scenarios under which a terrorist attack on a certain state may be launched.

- it could be launched by non state actors/organizations of the very state, in which the attacks are being launched, without the backing or support of any external element.

-it could be launched by non state actors/organizations of the very state, in which the attacks are being launched, with the backing or support of another state.

-it could be launched by non state actors/organizations of the very state, in which the attacks are being launched, with the backing or support of a non state actor/organization based in another state but without the support or backing of that state.

-it could be launched by non state actors/organizations of the another state, with the backing or support of that state.

-it could be launched by non state actors/organizations of the another state, without the backing or support of that state

and of course there could be some even more complex scenarios like a terrorist attack launched by non state actor/organization of another state without the backing of that state but with the implicit support of a third state etc..

now i am producing the exact text of article 51 and paragraph 4 of article 2 respectively

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security


All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

Paragraph 4 of article 2 supposedly speaks of an overt use of force by a certain state against another state which, of course, is not the case here.

If we analyze article 51, it speaks of the right of self defense in the face of armed attack. Now here again, this implies an overt attack by another state; while terrorist attack are of a very different nature altogether.

The matter in question is; how a state shall respond to the attacks of the kind of 9/11 or Mumbai attacks if it is established that these attacks are patronized by another state or a certain organization in another state.

US attacked Afghanistan following 9/11 on pretext that Taliban regime in Afghanistan offered hideouts to Al-Qaeda while it was never established that Taliban Government already knew that 9/11 is going to happen or had extended their support in this regard.
But UN gave its consent by passing resolution to wage a war on Afghanistan.

Now look at Mumbai attacks. It has been established that the links of the attacks goes back to an organization in Pakistan which every one knows, has the backing of Pakistani state. Same as the case is in 9/11, though it could not established that Pakistani states sponsored those attacks. But if precedence are to be followed (US attack on Afghanistan and UN resolution in this respect) then India has right to attack Pakistan. And this will be followed by other nations to settle scores with each other thus it would have extremely dangerous repercussions.

The crux of the discussion is that the language of UN charter in this regard is not clear as at the time of drafting this chart, the matter of terrorist attack was not taken care of. Thus different nations will interpret it differently and to achieve their ends. It is the need of the hour that UN should come up with a policy on this matter so that states are discouraged to sponsor terrorist attacks on another states and at the same time the victim states of the terrorist attacks refrain from waging war on those states who in one way or another backed those attacks because it will produce anarchy

Read international law by shaw from pg 800-851 to answer this question in a more analytical manner and to quote the relevant examples.

plz share