International Law Outline

Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda

Download 320.5 Kb.
Size320.5 Kb.
1   ...   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   ...   128
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda) – ICJ – 2005 (928-932)

  1. Applying Nicaraguastrict test

    1. No one reporting SD under article 51 again``

    2. Imply there are other ways Uganda could protect itself

  2. DRC had consented – when did consent END

    1. First complaint of DRC

  • Session 26 – Humanitarian Intervention (Use of Force, Part Two)

    1. Historical Humanitarian intervention

      1. Protect religious minority

      2. Stop governments engaging in widespread atrocities (generally also for self-interested reasons)

        1. 1971 – India invaded E. Pakistan

        2. 1978 – Vietnam invaded Cambodia

        3. 1979 – Tanzania invaded Uganda

        4. Never relied on humanitarian intervention – instead – SELF-DEFENSE

      3. Cold War – didn’t want to formally accept doctrine of HI – feared it would be liable to abuse

        1. When Cold War came to end – SC is back!

    2. Possible justifications for humanitarian intervention (use of force to protect another state’s citizens from serious and widespread abuse of HR)

      1. Humanitarian intervention not directed against state’s territorial integrity or political independence, and thus doesn’t violate Article 2(4)

      2. States exist to further rights of their citizens – when they attack/fail to protect them, they forfeit the legal protections of statehood

      3. When SC is deadlocked, preexisting customary int’l law right of humanitarian intervention should revive

      4. Theory of necessity permits use of force as lesser of two evils

    3. Security Council Led HI

      1. Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, DRC, Libera, Sudan, Haiti, Sierra Leone

      2. Determined each case posed threat to int’l peace and security.

        1. Even though many of these cases were internal conflicts.

      3. Most states accept Council has broad authority to respond to humanitarian disaster, including use of force

    4. Kosovo

      1. NATO, not UN, intervenes with use of force.

        1. Supporters

          1. Numerous SC resolutions determining there was a threat to int’l peace and security

            1. SC Res. 1160 – demanded Belgrade withdraw its “special police”

            2. SC Res. 1199 – demanded Belgrade cease hostilities and negotiate political settlement

          2. Rejected SC resolution to condemn bombing campaign

            1. Legally – this doesn’t mean anything

            2. Politically – useful.

          3. SC Res. 1244 – welcomed politicaion settlement

        2. Detractors

          1. Violated 2(4) of Charter

            1. Violate design of charter – cost-benefit analysis

              1. Risk of escalating interstate conflict inherent in weakening restraints on use of force outweigh possible benefit of exceptions for grave humanitarian need where SC can’t authorize military intervention

            2. Uphold state sovereignty AND complete prohibition on use of force

          2. No self-defense

            1. Kosovo is not independent state. Non-governmental entity can’t call for assistance

            2. Other states aren’t “directly” affected

            3. Where’s report to SC under article 51?

      2. International views on NATO’s decision

        1. NATO Javier Solana (941-42)

          1. Avoids relying on single legal justification

            1. Not waging war

            2. Necessary – no alternative

            3. Regional concerns

            4. Humanitarian, HR concerns – de facto HI argument?

          2. Doesn’t want to get tied down on particular argument – aware of power of IL norms.

            1. “humanitarian catastrophe” not “humanitarian intervention”

              1. Still nervous about Russian use of these options.

        2. UN Kofi Annan (942)

          1. Politically – can’t alienate P5, but still asserting respect for law

          2. Criticizes Yugoslav authorities

          3. Opens door – times when use of force might be legitimate in pursuit of peace

            1. As led by SC.

        3. US James Rubin (942-43)

          1. Serbia has committed such serious violations – don’t need international justification

            1. NATO is the only regional organization with such weight (don’t worry about Commonwealth)

          2. Again, refusing to commit to specific legal doctrine – fear the doctrine being used by other states with different interests

            1. Neither HI nor individual/collective SD, nor R2P

            2. WHY? US has SC veto power!

              1. All it needs is way to get around SC when it has to.

      3. Directory: sites -> default -> files -> upload documents
        upload documents -> Always put things in threes (eskridge has ocd) I. Procedural Due Process and Reading a Case
        upload documents -> Federalism – The Structure of Government
        upload documents -> General Info About Property law
        upload documents -> Con law professor Larry Sager Fall 1995 I. U. S. Term limits V. Thornton
        upload documents -> Property with Professor Vicki Been
        upload documents -> Property Outline – Professor Upham, Spring 2000
        upload documents -> Constitutional law outline part I: structure of government judicial review and constitutional interpretation
        upload documents -> Complex federal investigations
        upload documents -> Foundations: Agency Law Introduction to law of enterprise organizations
        upload documents -> Pricing v. Sanctions

        Share with your friends:
  • 1   ...   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   ...   128

    The database is protected by copyright © 2020
    send message

        Main page