CiR2P Option 35 | Self-Defence under Chapter VII Article 51

DISCUSSION:

Self-Defence Under Chapter VII Article 51 makes clear that states have an ‘inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs’.

Article 51 does not provide legal authority for military intervention in another country to protect civilians. However, states often turn to ‘self-defence’ to justify and explain the use of military force is because the scope and meaning of the right to self-defence remains unresolved to this day.

The scope of self-defence can refer to the boundaries that might constitute a threat. Governments overwhelmingly agree that threats of major concern no longer simply involve military actions (armed attack) undertaken by states, but rather threats come from transnational non-state actors such as cyber-criminals and terrorists as well as actor-less threats such as climate change and pandemics.

The meaning of self-defence can refer to the appropriate and inappropriate steps states can take to neutralise the threat. To satisfy this requirement requires demonstrating that the threat is imminent.

The sequential US-led wars in Afghanistan then Iraq are the most prominent examples of ‘self-defence’ being used flexibly to justify the use of military force in another country. In this example, it was argued that the scope of Article 51 should be extended to using force against those responsible for supporting terrorism, while the meaning should be expanded to include anticipatory self-defense.

Given this flexibility, and the centrality of climate change in Western security doctrines, arguments could be explored that seek to expand the scope of Article 51 to include, for example, imminent loss of natural resources vital to sustain life and livelihoods such as transboundary water resources.