#11159 - Use Of Economic Sanctions - International Law I

Use of Economic Sanctions (as a form of coercion)

1. When sanctioned by the organs of the U.N.

   1. Operation of Chapter VII (above)

      1. Step 1: Persuasion by Secretary-General

      2. Step 2: Precatory Resolution - General Assembly

      3. Step 3: Resolution Imposing Obligations - E.g. calling for a cease-fire

         • Finding under Art. 39/chance to settle dispute

      4. Step 4: Art. 41 (Sanctions NOT use of force)

      5. Step 5: Art. 42 (Use of Force)

   2. Peacekeeping Operations

      1. Not explicitly sanctioned by Chapter VII

   3. Uniting for Peace Doctrine

      1. Go to General Assembly for Resolution calling for Use of Force

         • (1) An important issue of war and peace

         • (2) Sec. Council unable to deal with situation due to veto

         • (3) Government of place of which troops to be deployed consented

      2. South Korea: Used Uniting for Peace Doctrine to allow for troops to go beyond 38th parallel where previous sec. council resolution did not allow this.

2. When not sanctioned by the organs of the U.N. (potential justifications for Use of Force) - See Louis Henkin, "Use of Force: Law and U.S. Policy" - SUGGESTED EXCEPTIONS to Article 2(4).

   1. Self-Defense (Art. 51)

      1. Self-Defense (In General)

         • (1) Reasonability of fear of injury on the part of the nation that acted

           • Anticipatory self-defense?

             • 1967 War in Israel & Egypt: There were U.N. forces on the border and upon their departure, there became a reasonable fear of injury (BUT UNDER a Uniting for Peace Resolution)

         • (2) Proportionality

           • How much force is justified given the circumstances?

             • In the Argentina / British dispute, British sunk an Argentine ship and Argentina said that was disproportionate response; that was unnecessary

             • Israel / Lebanon dispute – in the southern part of Lebanon, supported by Syria and other countries, were organizing raids into the northern part of Israel. So Israel invaded Lebanon and continued to invade / occupy a portion of the southern part of Lebanon that bordered Israel.

               • Israel said it was permissible self-defense the raids were coming against Israel from Lebanon so they can take steps to defend

               • Lebanon had a few responses: 1) the people raiding Israel were NOT government agents; they weren’t financing or directing the raids; the govt was in a shaky situation & they couldn’t control it so there’s no right to defend against Lebanon. 2) even if there’s the right to defend against them in Israel, they can’t come into Lebanon

               • So Israel responds to #2 argument under the doctrine of “hot pursuit” (also an argument used by US in Vietnam – the right of hot pursuit, as long as the military action in the other country was immediate, it’s just an element of self-defense). So Israel says that they don’t want raiders to have safe-haven in Lebanon. Hot pursuit justifies them crossing the border.

               • Re proportionality: Israeli troops controlled a strip north of the boundary. So Lebanon says you can’t occupy a portion of our country b/c that’s disproportionate. Israel responds that they need a buffer zone fully to defend themselves against the attack; can’t let the raiders come right up to the border of Israel so self-defense at least temporarily allows it

                 • Gusty says eventually "sort of settled"

         • ALSO consider proximity (harder to justify where farther away)

           • Easy to see w/ Lebanon / Israel dispute b/c they’re right next to each other

           • BUT, what about where there are many countries in between?

         • CLEAR CASE of Self-Defense: Kuwait at invasion of Iraq; it could defend and could impel the Iraqi invaders – could also try to enlist allies who could support their defense

      2. Self -Defense - Mary Ellen O'Connell, Lawful Self-Defense to Terrorism (justifying U.S. invasion of Iraq but noting that at a certain point the response became unproportional- Self-defense justified due to bombing of world trade center in 1994, attacks on US embassies in 1998, and 9/11)

         • (1) The defending state must be a victim of a significant armed attack;

         • (2) The armed attack must be either underway or the victim of an attack must have at least clear and convincing evidence that more attacks are planned;

         • (3) The defending state's target must be responsible for the significant armed attack in progress; AND

         • (4) The force used by the defending state must be necessary for the purpose of defense and it must be appropriate to the injury threatened

         • ISSUE: What about with respect to non-state actors?

      3. ALSO Entebbe Doctrine: Stands for the proposition that the right to use self-defense includes the right to use force in another country to save ones own citizens.

         • In 1976, Israel used force to extricate hostages held on a hijacked plane at Entebbe (Uganda).

           • In that case, an Israeli plane was forced to land in Uganda, and the people were kept there. Eventually, Israeli government organized a rescue mission that ended up being very bloody; some of the hostages were saved.

         • Protection of own citizens was also used as the justification to employ the military during Lyndon Johnson's time

           • This was during Dominican Republic upheaval when Trujillo family took over. Concerned about the disruption, Johnson sent marines to Santo Domingo to increase the probability that the result of the change would be one good for US interests. However, the explanation was that it was necessary to send marines to protect US citizens who were there who might be at risk if there was a general disruption of civic life.

         • Grenada: After a successful military coup, and then the subsequent murder of the leader of the coup (Maurice Bishop), there was a 24-hour curfew imposed and General Hudson Austin was declared head of the Military Council. BUT, there did not seem to be any coherent group in charge and no functioning government (the only exercise of authority was the curfew)

           • The U.S. intervened as a part of the OECS peacekeeping mission (under a regional agreement under Article 52)

             • Notwithstanding U.S. resolution condemning intervention, likely justified primarily as protection of U.S. Nationals (Entebbe Doctrine), humanitarian intervention, likely also...