The Use of Force and its Role in International Law

Abstract:

The important role that power plays in international relations has led to the emergence of schools of thought that explain international relations in the light of the concept of power, but despite the fact that power plays an essential role in international politics, it has become a means of achieving national values, and the competent bodies of the United Nations must be used fully The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in the field of the maintenance of international peace and security in order to increase the effectiveness of the principle of refraining from the use or threat of use of force in international relations. International security and settlement of disputes by peaceful means is not in accordance with the Charter.

Research Methodology:

The researcher has relied on the descriptive analytical method, which depends on collecting data on a specific phenomenon and revealing its dimensions. The preamble to the UN Charter states that the peoples of the United Nations have committed themselves to stating “the conditions under which justice can be achieved and the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be achieved,” and therefore the development and respect of international law remains a key part of the organization’s work. The organization works in the field of international law through the courts and multilateral treaties as well as the Security Council, which has the authority to deploy peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions and authorize the use of force in the event of a threat to international peace and security. These powers derive from the Charter of the United Nations, which is in itself an international treaty that has the force of enforcement and binding international law instruments on member states of the United Nations. The Charter codifies the main principles of international relations, from the sovereign equality of the state to the criminalization of the use of force in international relations.

Introduction:

Power is a natural phenomenon that has binded humanity since its existence on this earth. The form of the use of this force has developed directly and explicitly, especially military power, to an indirect use of force in the form of a threat, for example, or pressure in all its forms, which is usually called by means of coercion, for example, which does not amount to war, The international community has replaced great efforts to organize and define the prohibition of the use of force. These efforts were individually proportionate to the civilizational progress achieved by mankind. The more this progress increases, the more efforts are made in that way. Perhaps this is the reason why the civilized world has accessed increasingly deadly and more deadly and sophisticated weapons. War civilization on the one hand and on the other hand, because the phenomenon of resorting to force characterized by typically less urbanized societies while Tlji civilized societies to reason and wisdom in most dilemmas.

The important role that power plays in international relations has led to the emergence of schools of thought that explain international relations in the light of the concept of power, but despite the fact that power plays an essential role in international politics, but it has become a means to achieve national values, the competent bodies of the United Nations must be used fully The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in the field of the maintenance of international peace and security in order to increase the effectiveness of the principle of refraining from the use or threat of use of force in international relations. M and international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the Charter. In particular, it should work to strengthen the role of the Security Council so that it can carry out its tasks fully and effectively. In this regard, the permanent members of the Council bear a special responsibility in accordance with the Charter. Despite the fact that the international community tried to limit aggression and frame the war and make it more humane, all when the United Nations Charter came up with a comprehensive plan to confront situations of threat or breach of peace, despite all of this was violated The principle of the prohibition of the use of force in international relations with the resumption of the case of legitimate self-defense, and this use also had negative effects even on the international situation in which wars and conflicts erupted, and this effect later followed the role of the United Nations so that it was unable to put an end to international disputes without access Depending on military power, this explains that the international community has become disorganized and solves its problems through military intervention, which has become among the problems raised at the level of international relations, which are problematic, contradictory and unacceptable, and contradicting the legitimate act issued by the Security Council. Otherwise, this does not mean accepting intervention without A mandate from the Security Council because an unlawful military act may have disastrous effects on the international system. The Security Council should be able to investigate the facts as required by the specific situation, in accordance with the Charter.

International Law on the Use of Force in Light of New Developments in the Americas:                                                                                                                        

So far, the first weeks of 2020 have proven eventful for the international community. After a major opening between the United States and Iran that sparked a prolific debate over international law over the use of force, Juan Guaido traveled in late January across Europe to gather international support for his battle against the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The importance of this event cannot be overemphasized for international law on the use of force. Indeed, during the past two years, some regional voices in the Western Hemisphere have hinted at the possibility of using force against Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro regime and restore democracy there. More specifically, a recent development that may pose a serious challenge to the United Nations Charter: the invocation of the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Mutual Assistance (“Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca” or “TIAR”), also known as the “Treaty of Rio” by a group of American states Against Venezuel.

TIAR is a collective defense pact under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It has been ratified by 19 American states (including the United States), and is a pioneer in such arrangements as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In the case of Venezuela, to date, only the TIAR advisory body has authorized financial sanctions directed against the Maduro regime. However, Article 8 of the Temporary International Law has been “observed”, which states, among other things, that force is used as a last resort without qualifications.

Although Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations states that “no enforcement action may be taken under regional arrangements or agencies without the permission of the Security Council”, this provision is not mentioned in the first decision of the aforementioned organ on the situation in Venezuela. This publication examines whether there is a subsequent practice of a State that could, under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, lead to a new interpretation of Article 53 that would run counter to what is considered a clear text requiring the Security Council to agree to enforce actions taken by regional bodies.

Reality Errors when Using Lethal Force in International Law:

In summary, we examined the error made when using lethal force in various sub-fields of international law: such a principle, in its purely subjective form, is the law of black letters in international criminal law. It is also rooted (even if not classified as such) in international human rights law and (somewhat less clear) in international humanitarian law. However, international humanitarian law and international human rights law will require error for both honest and reasonable to be able to exclude responsibility. Both IHL and IHRL contain explicit preventive rules whose role is partly to determine the limits of reasonable error and thus permissible (for example in relation to goal verification.)

As we have seen, the question of truth is wrong in the law of war. However, as a matter of state, even if one thinks it is desirable, it will be difficult to say that the mistake of belief on legal rule is customary law. I cannot think of any country other than the United States that invoked such a doctrine, even implicitly. (Any such examples known to readers would be very welcome.) When the doctrine was invoked, as with Iranian flight 655, it was certainly not widely accepted by other countries. There is sufficient ambiguity in the state’s response to the shooting down of that plane,

Especially in the cold war atmosphere, where one cannot categorically exclude the possibility of such a rule. But he seems unlikely to do so. And if so, it could not be the purely subject matter of the ICL, which would be inappropriate in the context of the law of war by IHL and IHRL. With all this in mind, let us move on to dropping Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752 over Tehran, as we have seen in little way reminding of the USS Vincennes shooting down Iranian flight 655. There are many similarities between the two incidents, not least that they relate to the same two countries, if they are Different aspects of the story, and that both cases raise questions about a factual error. What is completely different is the broader context – the Cold War distorted everything that touched it. And I think it’s fair to say that the social impact of international law is somewhat greater today than it was then. Thus, countries like Ukraine and Canada have already used legal language against Iran. President Zelinsky said: Iran has confessed to the Ukrainian plane crash. But we insist on a full confession of guilt. We expect Iran to confirm assurances that it is ready to conduct a full and open investigation, bring those responsible to justice, return the dead bodies, pay compensation, and make an official apology through diplomatic channel.

Likewise, Prime Minister Trudeau said that “Iran must bear full responsibility” for its actions.

This is exactly what Iran should do. You should not only listen to these other countries that claim their responsibility. She must listen to the voice of her ambassador while speaking in the Security Council Chamber to refuse to justify the American self-defense by dropping IR 655.                                                                                           :

We believe that the responsible government, under the current conditions that caused it to destroy a civilian aircraft and its 290 passengers, must urgently take three steps: it must apologize to the families of the victims and to the peoples and governments concerned; it must accept the full responsibility for dropping the plane and providing compensation on the basis of Its legal and ethical responsibility; it must re-evaluate and review the policies that led to the downing of the plane and the killing of its innocent passengers. S / PV.2821, 6).                                                                     )

Equally interesting is McCann. Indeed, I would argue that human rights law specifically – largely absent from discussions of the destruction of IR 655, regardless of one reference (of all people) the Syrian ambassador – is the law that fits dropping the Ukrainian plane. The most serious violation of international law here is not a violation of the Chicago Convention, but a violation of the human right to life, which, unlike the Chicago Convention, can never be prevented through the law of self-defense.

Just like the SAS soldiers in McCann, Iranian air defense officers sincerely believed that they had to work to avoid a threat to human life. As in McCann, they were wrongly told that this threat was certain – that American cruise missiles would be featured. As in McCann, they didn’t have time to trade. As in McCann, the violation of the right to life does not stem directly from the soldiers ’decision to use lethal force, but rather from systematic background failures of the highest Iranian authorities.

If Iran had closed its airspace to civilian traffic that evening, knowing full well that hostilities with the United States could escalate easily, the plane would never have been shot down. If Iran properly coordinated air defenses with civilian air traffic control, the plane would never have been shot down. If Iran properly trained its forces at various levels, the plane would not have been shot down at all. Thus, even if Iran’s real mistake that led to the destruction of the plane was sincere, it was not reasonable, and as such it would bear state responsibility for violating the human rights of the victims. This violation is exacerbated by the initial attempts of the Iranian authorities to obstruct the investigation and cover up the cause of the accident, which they happily stopped, but nevertheless led to a violation of the positive commitment to the effective investigation of illegal deaths.

This is how Iran should limit the compensation it provides – not as charitable payments as a gift, not (only) as compensation for countries like Ukraine or Canada, but only as consent to those individuals whose rights have been violated. By doing this, Iran must compensate its citizens in the same way as it does foreigners, on an equal footing with dignity. It must provide sufficient assurances to the international community that such a mistake, although it may be true, will never be repeated.

Manifestations of the Use of Force in International Relations and its Role in InternationalRelations:                                                                                                               

In international relations, a set of practices are distributed, whether legitimate or unlawful, and through which aspects of this use can be determined, but these aspects differ and vary according to what is required by international events.

The First Paragraph: Intervention:

Definition of the Intervention:

The interference in the main methods that countries used to use force in their international relations has been around since ancient times, and the concept of this idea witnessed a great development according to the sacred European alliance, then the ideas related to it developed until it became an illegal manifestation of the use of force in the current era and some believe that The best way to define intervention is by defining non-intervention, and in this, Talirand says that non-intervention is a word that means what the intervention means.

As for Coast, he tries to provide an easier definition of the intervention, as he says the interference of a state in the affairs of another state whose aim it aims at, whether the target is humanitarian or inhuman.

Muhammad Talat Al-Ghunaimi believes that interference is the exposure of a state to the affairs of another country in an authoritarian manner and with the intention of maintaining or changing the current affairs of things.

As for Corevin, he believes that the interference is a state’s breach of its power over another state with the intention of achieving a legal effect that other countries cannot compel the rest of them to do what they want to achieve. If the local authority meets attempts to intervene with armed resistance, the situation will turn to war.

The Concept of Intervention::2

Dr. Fritz Group believes that it is difficult or rather to try to define a definition of intervention based on his denial in an attempt to establish a definition of war, but despite the difficulty of establishing a comprehensive and preventive definition, a serious attempt must be made in this way. The best way to achieve this is to set and discuss the general framework for this definition, then try to develop the required definition, as Urs Schwartz is the first to put the first features of this general framework is that the purpose of the intervention is to maintain from the point of view of the intervention at least, to the status quo, whether it is From a political or legal point of view, secondly, the balance of power between the interventionist party and the other party is clearly in favor of the former, as it is unreasonable for a weak party to interfere in the affairs of a strong party, otherwise the oasis of war, and thirdly, the intervention is a time-limited and means act and is practiced within the context of other public relations.

Finally, the interference takes place, whether or not it is claimed by the party concerned, because it is directed at influencing the political and social structure of the other side.

Thus, interference is a position or a permanent solution through which a state, an international organization, or a group of countries bypass the parties of the existing, accepted relationship. And it tries to impose its will on a country or group of countries in order to force it to do something, or take a specific position, whether it is political, moral or legal.

These above definitions address the issue of interference at the invitation of the other party, as there is no imposition of the will on the other hand, and thus this case emerges from the concept of interference and becomes aid, cooperation or implementation of a treaty or based on an obligation under the alliance and the like.

This and some tend to expand the concept of intervention to include very many images in the forms of relations, while others tend to give it a narrower concept and the intervention applies only to relations between countries and not between individuals, parties, political groups, organizations, private groups or between countries, and if they limit the interference before Groups that have nothing to do with countries accused of interference. This is represented by acts of infiltration, sabotage and gang movements. It is necessary to know the existence of such a relationship with foreign countries before the work can be described as interference.

Objectives and objectives of the intervention:                                                          :3

The declared ends of the intervention are often noble goals and supreme goals invoked by the intervening state, it may be in the form of spreading a specific ideology or a particular religious belief or maintaining the status quo against turmoil and chaos and the researcher can find the foundations of those ideas in the Holy Pact, [which was held based on Christianity to intervene against the revolutionary movements that were invading Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. And the idea of ​​intervention remained in European countries even after the disappearance of the reasons for the establishment of the Holy Alliance and its extinction, as these countries were considered themselves at old times, especially after the year 1848 because they are the most civilized and humane countries in the world and that the Christian religion and civilization should prevail in the world, and therefore, the intervention in order to spread This religion, civilization and culture was a lofty goal that must be adhered to, which increased the belief in the weakness and wasting of the Ottoman Empire and the European state’s ambition to restore the European areas that were under its control, such as Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia on the basis of helping its Christian population.

           Intervention was also sometimes made in order to maintain national prestige or the lives of foreign citizens, as happened in China in 1900 when Arab countries sent military forces to maintain their embassy there from the revolution that erupted in China after the world split into two camps, so each camp has become Its own goals and justifications for intervention. The capitalist camp sees that the objectives of legitimate intervention are to spread Therefore, he spread communism and Marxist-Leninist ideas, encouraged libertarian revolutions, and countered revolutions, but the reality that we see today shows that both camps are trying to achieve their own self behind concealment of these declared values ​​and goals.democracy, freedom and the right to self-determination while adding the socialist camp.

4-International Law Does not Authorize Unilateral Interference:                                

The legal arguments and foundations expressed by supporters of humanitarian intervention turn a blind eye to the reality of international practice and the actual position of the various international instruments related to the use of force. It is only through a balance between it and a number of basic principles established in international law such as the principle of prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of states, the principle that international conflicts must be settled peacefully and the principle of prohibiting the territorial integrity and independence of the state Politician.

The foundations of the trend in support of humanitarian intervention also include clear denial and waste of the General Assembly’s decisions prohibiting the use of force in international relations, in a comprehensive definition under the United Nations Charter. Declaration No. 2625 on the principles of international law resulting in friendly relations and cooperation between states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations excludes from its scope the right to intervene and does not yet contain any provision related to humanitarian intervention that supports the recommendations of the General Assembly No. 3314 of 1974 regarding the definition of aggression in Article V of which is what was contained in The Declaration of Friendly Relations No. 2625 of 1974 stipulated that “no consideration whatsoever of his nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may be used as a justification for committing an aggression”.

Legal foundations supporting the theory of humanitarian intervention deny the content of the ICJ ruling in the case of military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. The court has raised the notion of military humanitarian intervention.

The court has made clear in this case that the use of force is not an appropriate method to ensure respect for human rights by states.

There is no correlation between the use of force and work to ensure respect for fundamental rights in other countries. Usually, the use of force even if it is purely for humanitarian purposes.

The court’s ruling is categorical in its significance, and there is no way to interpret it or to describe it except as a complete and strict rejection of any claim that there is a right that allows states to use force in order to ensure respect for basic human rights. And this judgment cannot be seen as a date of the United States’s failure to demonstrate the availability of humanitarian goals to do so. With its military actions, it is concluded from the practical practices of the countries related to Resolution 688/1991 that the humanitarian purpose was not the primary motive for this practice, and that the intervention is based only on the theory of humanitarian intervention only partially and at the beginning without any legal basis, but its basic argument in justifying its intervention is based on Z Security Council resolution, and then invoke self-defense theory of intervention does not excuse her not Draah her alone so the solo intervention, it is the image of the use of force based in his countries such as interventions north of the Atlas NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

5- United Nations Declaration on the Prohibition of Interference

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a draft resolution in which it announced its intention to prevent interference, in the moratorium in which the year witnessed many instances of interference such as the United States of America’s intervention in Vietnam, and this declaration was not a new pact against interference as it did not provide any new legal rules No more than an affirmation of the basic principles known to non-interference and he has pointed out.

The declaration, at the forefront of regional organization charters such as the Organization of American States, the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity, also emphasized the decisions of the Bandunah Conference and the Conference of Heads of State of Non-Aligned held in 1961 in Belgrade that the important part of this decision states that every country has the right to choose its political system Economic and social without any interference in any other country and no country has the right to interfere directly or indirectly for any reason whatever the internal and external affairs of any other country, so armed intervention and all other forms of inputs and threats are against the personality of the state or against its political system Economic or cultural is considered condemned, and all states should refrain from organizing and assisting the diversion and encouragement of armed activities of a terrorist or disobedient nature that aim to replace the government system of another country by force or by interfering in the internal disputes of another country. Nothing in this declaration should affect in any way whatsoever. The forms on the application of both the United Nations Charter to maintain world peace and security, especially those articles contained in Chapter VI, VII and VIII.

The essence of this declaration was adopted by more than one hundred countries is the condemnation of individual intervention of countries in all its aspects and forms. The focus on non-violation in the occupation of collective intervention by the United Nations body subject to individual intervention.

Finally, reference must be made to Article 52 of the Charter, which has given regional organizations the right to address issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security in their respective regions.

It is thus equal in the power to use the given collective intervention and the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity and they all have the possibility of collective intervention to maintain international peace and security and the forces affiliated with it have the advantage of wearing the clothing and the distinctive signs of the United Nations forces.

6- Group Intervention and Individual Intervention:

We have noticed that until the end of World War I, traditional international law recognized the right to intervene unilaterally, so that when certain conditions were provided, any state could take over the application of the law as it wished. As for the paragraph between the two wars, which witnessed the rise and fall of the League of Nations and the Permanent International Court of Justice, It can be considered as a period of transition, as doubts prevailed over the right of major powers to intervene, and after the emergence of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and international organizations, the intervention became dependent on two basic ideas:

1- Equality between countries, regardless of their size and influence, has become a basic rule. This is despite the political reality and the existence of the two giants, especially the United States of America, as they can no longer completely dominate the world. Any international legal rule does not apply equally to all states and is not considered a valid rule. Thus, the major countries have to hear the opinion of the smaller states, and to take it. The small countries and peoples that were weak and overpowered over their affairs and a colony have an impact on the United Nations and have an audible word and have a role. Great played in international forums.

2-The means to protect the interests of the state have evolved, expanded and improved a lot and countries are expected to benefit from the possibilities available to them by the United Nations to implement them and the idea of ​​state sovereignty has become, it is a concept of non-interference almost absolute idea if viewed from the negative side, that is, the side of non-interference In the internal affairs of states, as for the positive side, the sovereignty of states has become limited in terms of the possibility of implementing the collective security system mentioned above.

Thus, interference by a single country with other affairs has become unanimous and unanimous. Considering that settlements and sometimes coercion remain necessary to some degree in the international environment, the solution lies in the idea of ​​a solution and collective intervention, so collective intervention that takes place within the framework of an internationally recognized organization, To lead a joint force formulating international peace and security can be considered legitimate and in international jurisprudence and contemporary international practice, interference is not considered legitimate unless it is carried out on behalf of the United Nations or similar organizations.

The Second Paragraph: Aggression

Despite the horror of the war and its consequences for mankind, nature and life, the war is still acceptable in principle in international logic and international and governmental organizations and the definition of the crime of aggression is still awaiting its entry into the sanctity of the International Criminal Court. Some are like Eskimo and Andamanese, it is difficult to know how many peaceful peoples were destroyed because the option of peace was not universal, and the law of the jungle remained, giving the strongest the right to survival and domination.

1- Definition of Aggression:                                                                                      

The problem of defining aggression has occupied the wise and philosophers over the many centuries The concept of aggression has emerged since the days of ancient Rome and historians of law return the term aggression to the Latin word Aggressio, i.e. aggression, and one of the oldest definitions was an attack by a stronger country on a weaker country to achieve the gains and interests and expansion in the limits and wealth of the aggressor In the dictionaries of anthropology, humanities witnessed the expression of a group instead of a state, given that aggression preceded states.

Likewise, the main moral justification for war may be to protect the innocent from certain harm. St. Augustine wrote his book The City of God in the fifth century A.D. and his work had a great impact on the idea of ​​a just war. He also stressed the need to build an integrated system of peaceful relations between people and not limit the topic to armed expression. Not only does true peace lie in the absence of armed conflict, but in a peaceful system, unlike the absence of war, it does not necessarily mean that there is no conflict.

Mankind has created multiple forms to protect itself from aggression and the horrors of war, or at least from the horrors of self-assault, supply, belief, nature, and land in Arab society before Islam, so that Arabs invented the most sacred months, which are months in which war is prohibited for any reason, and for whatever justification it was to preserve souls and respond to aggression and search On the peaceful means of conflict resolution.

2- Acts of Aggression:                                                                                               

The Charter of the United Nations came free of any definition of aggression, and this is due, in the opinion of some, to the desire to avoid defining the concept and the possibility that the definition does not come accurate and comprehensive, which leads to the aggressor benefiting from that.

In addition, the term aggression includes political, legal, military and logical aspects that are difficult to include in a single, comprehensive definition.

It was envisaged during the preparations for the United Nations to leave the identification of aggression to the Security Council, and indeed the aforementioned Council has resorted on many occasions to the definition of aggression as the United Nations has not abandoned its attempts to define aggression, and the first serious attempt to do so was the proposal presented by the Union The Soviets in the fifth session in which he indicated that from any conflict of an international nature the state is considered an aggressor if it initiates the commission of one of the following: declaring war, invading the territory of another state with its armed forces, bombing the territory of another state, attacking ships and aircraft, landing or commanding armed forces within State borders Others without their permission, resort to the naval blockade.

This project was referred to the International Law Mission, which decided to address the issue by adding the following: Article 2 of the proposed crime against humanity protocol (i.e. an act of aggression, including the use of the armed forces based on the state’s authority against another state for any purpose other than self-defense Individual or collective, or in implementation of a decision issued by a competent United Nations body.

The issue was considered again at the sixth session of the General Assembly, where it was referred to the Sixth Committee, which was tasked with studying and defining the aggression. Several projects and decisions were presented before it, including a revised draft of the Soviet definition project. It will inevitably omit to mention some acts that can be classified as aggression, which causes the aggressors to commit hostile actswithoutbeingcondemned.

Others see the necessity of setting a definition of aggression to guide states, in addition to that it is an important step in the progress of international law, in deterring countries that think of an attack and that an incomplete definition is better than not present and if there are defects it can be modified later on that approval did not take place With this ease, the Special Committee continued its efforts and discussion and finally managed to draft a resolution in this regard that was adopted by the General Assembly at the end of 1974, [17] the resolution defined aggression as the use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty of another country or its territorial integrity or political independence, or In any way that contradicts the mother’s charter The United Nations as indicated in this definition.

Under this definition, the use of force by one of the states is a preliminary, if not conclusive, indication of the aggression, meaning that the Security Council can reach a contrary or opposite decision in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

Thus, regardless of whether or not the declaration of war exists, the following acts are considered hostile actions:

First: an invasion or attack by a state of its armed forces on the territory of another country or any military occupation, no matter how temporary it is caused by this invasion or any annexation using the armed force of the territory of another country or part of it.

Second: A country bombs, with its armed forces, the lands of another country, or the use of any weapons by one state against the lands of another country.

Third: The blockade of the ports or coasts of one state by the armed forces of another country.

Fourth: Any attack by the armed forces of one country on the land, sea, or air forces of another country.

Fifth: The use of the armed forces of one state within the territory of another state with the consent of the independent state in a manner that contradicts the conditions stipulated in the agreement or any determination of its stay in these lands until after the end of the agreement.

Sixth: A country is permitted to use its lands that have been put at the disposal of another country.

Seventh: Send gangs, irregular soldiers, or mercenaries armed by a state or its behalf, carrying out activities that involve the use of force against another country and with a degree of seriousness that amounts to the level of the aforementioned acts, or the State’s participation in it greatly.

– 3- The Effects of War Crimes and Aggression:                                                   

International crimes are a violation of all norms and covenants. They also constitute legal and humanitarian obligations towards states and international organizations. Therefore, preventing and reducing crimes is the responsibility of everyone, especially the international community, especially what is mentioned in Chapter VI and Chapter VII Articles 39 and 50 which include taking all measures against international crimes. Especially the war crime and armed aggression committed against another country and empowering the Security Council with the powers necessary to take military or non-military measures in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 which contain the Security Council’s actions in a manner that preserves international peace and security as it is legally not And the deputy may act on his behalf except within the limits of the authority conferred on that prosecution. The General Assembly of the United Nations has issued several decisions condemning the use of force, including the decision taken at its thirty-fourth session in 1986 regarding the condemnation of aggression and the legal aspect that obliges states to refrain from recognizing the legitimacy War, aggression and its consequences. In accordance with the Charter, states must refrain from providing aid that would maintain the situation created by those crimes. As for the individual responsibility for committing international crimes that accrue to persons, regardless of their characteristics or immunities, whether they are chiefs or military leaders.

It remains one of the tasks of civil societies at the global level to remain in a state of anticipation in order to isolate all the dangers of the crime of aggression at the level of public opinion. It is no secret that the countries that practice aggression today either boycott the International Criminal Court as is the case of the United States of America and Israel or restrict their powers other than what can be called The veto privilege that allows it to stop investigating any prosecution during a year, the existence of strong pressure groups to hold perpetrators of the crime of aggression accountable allows for legal accountability to be placed on the agenda of any independent judiciary in any democratic country with universal criminal jurisdiction with respect to international legal norms The crime of aggression, which is the major serious crimes in human societies.

The Standard on Proportionality and the Distinction between Military and Civilian Targets:                                                                                                             

Giving the right to resist occupation is not absolute. Rather, it is subject to the above controls, and those requirements related to the law of war and international humanitarian law applicable to resistance movements, and all the military actions that it includes, because violating the rules of the two laws and failing to comply with their restrictions loses the right of resistance to its legitimacy, so all ongoing actions under it and because of it turn into terrorist acts, when the owners of this right condone those laws, or in the case of their arbitrary use of that right, and this This often leads to confusion and the difficulty in distinguishing between the two clearly and precisely.

One of the scholars presented two assumptions for this criterion and the response to it, as the first hypothesis was based on not recognizing acts of violence directed at military targets and fighters as terrorism, and the exception to this hypothesis is the possibility that attacking military targets and fighters at a certain point becomes a measure of Non-discrimination, as in nuclear war, becomes terrorism in terms of impact, if not intent.

The second hypothesis is attacks of indiscriminate violence that are deliberately directed at non-combatants, i.e. civilians and civilian objects, it is considered terrorism, and the exception to it is that the attack on civilians if it reaches a certain level of discrimination in choosing the target and the means here is not considered terrorism.

This means that armed resistance actions can be directed at non-innocent civilians, such as agents and spies who deal in favor of the occupation, as well as civilian targets related to the management of the occupation that are not innocent in front of military resistance, which in these cases are legitimate and not considered terrorist.

Third: The Criterion of Looking at the Relationship between the Warring Parties and the trait of victims:                                                                                                  

It depends on determining the status of the victims who fall as a result of the hostile military operations between the resistance movements and the colonists, that is, determining whether they are military or civilian, so the hostilities directed towards the first category are legitimate while they are otherwise if they were deliberately, mainly and directly directed towards the second category, so they are considered Accordingly, terrorism.

The situation of the victims should also be taken into consideration in relation to the conflict between the two parties and their relationship with the belligerents, in other words: it is necessary to know whether these victims are directly affiliated with the hostile party, or they are affiliated with a third party, and here the relationship of the latter to the belligerent parties must be examined, so if it becomes evident that the party The third is neutral and does not interfere directly or indirectly in the conflict between them, because all the victims belonging to it (the third party) and because of this conflict, is the result of illegal terrorist acts directed at them by one of the warring parties, and the perpetrator is responsible for these actions.

According to this opinion, if it turns out that a third party is not in a neutral position, but rather tends to one of the conflicting parties to support or provide political, military and material support and support, then he must bear successful consequences of this, especially if one of the warring parties considers this position to be hostile and participatory to the second party in His aggression and terror.

Some have gone – and we are with them – that this opinion is absurd when it gives a justification for targeting civilian victims, because their political systems or their decision-makers support one of the warring parties with all kinds of support, so they hold innocent civilians the burden of their governments on the basis that they are the consequences of this bias, and therefore not They can be considered victims of terrorism, but common sense requires consideration of the warring parties, regardless of their status and the other parties, or their consent because, according to international law and the rules of legality, prejudice to innocent people who are not combatants or have a direct relationship to the conflict who belong to the authority of Occupation, colonial interference or any other aggression is considered a criminal act that comes out of the resistance range. Otherwise, we would give the justification according to this proposal to Israel, for example, to strike Arab civilians anywhere in the world, as long as all or most Arab and Islamic states support the resistance and support the liberation movement Palestinian nationalism, which enters us into a great confusion to distinguish between the legitimate actions of the resistance and acts of revenge and counter-retaliation, and therefore what the United States and Israel are doing today from what they claim is legitimate defense, is a terrorist act of the first degree.

Standard on the Consideration of Responsibility in International Crime:              

Places of permissibility for acts that appear to be terrorist at first sight and before confirmation of their true requirements, and the thrust of that and by reference to the general rule, the international crime represents an illegal act, but it is not sufficient to say that such a crime occurred and the occurrence of the act constituting it just because it applies formally to the forbidden model In the legal text established and specified for this crime, as to reach this result it is necessary to ensure that this act applies objectively with the legal text, and that it does not take him or enter him under penalty of exception, he may respond to this text and he permits it in these exceptional cases regardless of He remains a criminal in other cases governed by the general rule.

This falls within legal, humanitarian, and social considerations, which set for each general rule exceptions in line with the circumstances and motives surrounding the perpetrator, and the most important example: the act of killing, which is considered a crime in the internal laws as a general principle prescribed, but the fact of killing as a crime may come out of its formality in line with The legal text in the event of a reaction within the exceptions to that rule, so the act is transferred from criminalization to legalization and legitimacy when killing in self-defense within the limits set by law, so we will not be facing a crime even though the act applies formally to the text the offender has a legal.

We find that the same thing is repeated in relation to the rules of international law, for example: the fourth paragraph of Article Two of the Charter of the United Nations stipulates the prohibition of the use or threat of the use of force in international relations and between countries in violation of the provisions of this Charter, and this means in terms of the result that every use of force or Threatening to use it constitutes an international crime, and this leads to the assertion that there are cases of the use of force that are in accordance with the provisions of this Charter, and do not fall under the general rule contained in the mentioned paragraph, and this is what Article 51 of the United Nations Charter referred to when it stipulated the right of states Individual and c Rather, people, have recourse to the use of armed force in the case of legitimate self-defense if they are exposed to aggression or military occupation by another state or countries.

In this Charter, the application of a state of necessity, or compulsion of all kinds, is applied in which the perpetrator pays an emergency payment without prior notice, and he has no choice but to pay the damage or the assault against him, and this is a strong justification for committing the act depicted in the crime punishable by the text Legal, which raises the responsibility in cases of legalization.

These exceptional rules have been applied in the field – albeit in relative proportions, especially in light of international developments – through the actions of liberation and armed resistance movements that sometimes have to practice terrorism in a positive sense, which is based on controls of legitimacy in the face of aggression or occupation, which leads when Especially the military necessities, including the implementation of terrorist acts in the stages of their struggles, in the face of their weak capabilities and their inability to engage in wide open battles with the enemy, or perhaps under the influence of political and media propaganda pressures that compel them to resort to such methods to spread their public cause clues.

From there, the international community and international public opinion were alerted to their attention, and on this basis the armed resistance movements deny criminal responsibility and material and moral coercion with terrorist acts, especially if they are in response to previous similar operations carried out by the occupation authorities and forces against the residents of the occupied territories, that is, through reciprocity. ([93.)

This opinion remains subject to substantive discussion if we want to return to the direction that gives the right to use force to the liberation movements, but with conditions related to not harming the innocent or endangering their lives, and the resistance movements to liberate the homelands should move away from such actions, and focus on resisting the aggressor on their homelands. And put the principle of distinction in mind and not lose sight of it, so that the aggressor states do not invoke this to stigmatize the actions of these movements with terrorist acts.

I think this is the situation that presents the problem of confusion between terrorism and resistance and the factor of legitimacy and illegitimacy, which distinguishes between the distinct and undifferentiated trends between the two images. Influence the attitudes taken here and there, through the stages of development witnessed by the international community, and the new changes that flow in the direction that imposes its perception of the world, which mixes concepts and upset the balance between what is sacred and what is profane, became clear on the extent of the impact of terrorism The international right of self-determination, as a sacred principle of human rights and humanitarian scale.

General Framework Forbidding the Use of Force in International Relations:       

Prohibition of the use of force:                                                                              

Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations states that: “All members of the commission shall refrain from the threat of the use of force or its use against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or otherwise that does not accord with the purposes of the United Nations”.

Article 2, paragraph 4, literally stated that it is necessary to refrain from using force or threatening to use force against state sovereignty in any way that is inconsistent with the goals of the United Nations of maintaining international peace and security. The principle of the prohibition of force has gained use in international relations of legal force. The text prohibits all forms that the force used can take through the phrase “blocking territorial integrity or political independence of any country or otherwise that does not conform to the purposes of the United Nations, whether this force is direct or indirect.” Such as political, military and economic pressures, but a discussion was raised about the implications of the concept of force contained in Article 2, paragraph 4, where a part of the jurisprudence was considered that the term force is the armed force that confirms the form of armed aggressions, i.e. military against the territorial integrity or political independence of the state, so it is not permissible Considering military threats or media actually encourage and provoke internal unrest, acts of force, which requires the legitimate defense in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter.

A discussion was also raised about the scope of the use of force within the scope of the same article, and linking it to the state and no other organizational forms by pronouncing their international relations and the state’s phrase in the text of the article, which is what excludes the organizations that are not available on the state’s fundamentals “land, people, political power,” especially movements. National liberation, which seeks to advance the level of the independent state by exercising its people’s right to self-determination. Thus, the use of force in the event that peoples exercise their right to self-determination is not prohibited according to the spirit of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter, and failure to respect this principle is considered an aggression in which the state under which it is subjected is granted the right to return it within the framework of the legitimate defense of the state until the Security Council intervenes to take Measures to maintain international peace and security.

It also exacerbated the dispute between those who say that the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2/4 of the Charter and those who say that it is limited to only a manifestation of the use of force regarding the NATO alliance’s military strength against Yugoslavia to settle the conflict, the use of force to this end is legitimate? As a result, force may be used where the purpose is not to surround the government or occupy or fragment the territory of the State.

2-Prohibition of War and Non-Use of Force in International Relations:                 

The spirit of the Charter lies, therefore, it should be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and its goals. In the first preamble, the preamble expressed the determination of Member States to save future generations from the scourge of war, which in one generation brought twice unspeakable sorrow to humanity. The fourth paragraph expressed the intention of Member States not to use Power and the spirit of the Charter Its goals are to save humanity from the scourge of war. Chapter VII of the Charter defined the provisions within which it is possible to resort to the use of armed force and affirmed that the Security Council has the unity of declarative authority if there was a threat to the peace or a breach of it or was an act of action Aggression, and if the Council decides to submit its recommendations or decide what must be taken in the measures in accordance with the provisions of Articles 41 and 42 for the maintenance of international peace and security, or to restore it to its normal, Article 39 of the Charter as Articles 42-51 of the only articles dealing with the actual use of force, and there is no charter The United Nations is any article authorizing any of its members to use force unilaterally, except for the specific and restricted case stipulated in Article 51 which is the natural right of states, individually or groups to defend themselves, if an armed force assaults a member of the United Nations until it is taken The Security Council measures necessary to keep the peace International security.

Even if a state was forced to use this natural right, it should inform the Security Council immediately, and the Council then, according to its special powers in the province of Kosovo in 1999, so many countries and scholars and analysts expressed different and divergent legal positions. While another sect adopted a position that contradicted the illegality of the Atlantic process and that it involved a grave breach of the provisions of the United Nations Charter in general and Article 2/4 with it in particular.

What is similar today today, as the current dispute about Article 2/4 of the Charter of the United Nations is similar to the day that erupted in the first days following the adoption of the United Nations Charter, but the most important reason behind the intensification of the dispute over the interpretation of the text of Article 2/4 and about the scope of the ruling Contained therein. At that time, it represented the extent of the coverage of this text by other customary rules governing the use of force in international relations when the Charter was developed and enforced. Is Article 2/4 a reflection of the custom in force at that time, or does it imply a smallpox between what was in effect until 1940.

The linguistic formula in which the provision set out in Article 2/4 raises a set of important questions. Is it beneficial from the phrase “blocking the territorial integrity or political independence of any country or in any other way that does not accord with the purposes of the United Nations” that the ruling that prohibits the use of force is limited to its effect on In which cases the force is directed against the political independence of the state and against its territorial integrity? Does he and his responsibilities prepare the right to take at any time what he deems necessary to take actions to maintain international peace and security or restore it to its quorum, and other than this restricted right? The Charter prohibits the use of force and requires all its members to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, paragraph 3 of Article Two.

Violation of this principle is a retrogression and a return to the rule of force law in international relations.

3- Forfeiting others’ lands by Force                                                                       

The United Nations Organization has issued many international resolutions that condemned the aggression and prohibited the seizure of the territory of others, describing it by force, as well as by stipulating explicitly the principle of the prohibition of the acquisition of the land of others by force on many occasions, including what was stated in Article Eight of the draft and the rights and duties of the countries that submitted them to the General Assembly In 1947, in which I took it, every country should refrain from recognizing the acquisition of territories resulting from the use or threat of force, as well as Article 11 of the draft Rights and Duties of States prepared by the International Law Commission. The Security Council issued Resolution No. 3256 on November 2, 1956 No. 3257 in November 1956, Resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, Resolution 252 on May 21, 1968, and other decisions that affirmed the principle of prohibiting the acquisition of others’ lands by force. At the same time, the International Court of Justice found it illegal to acquire any land through force or the threat of its use.

4- The Concept of Force Contained in the Charter:                                                     

Article 2, paragraph 4, does not specify whether the force to which it refers is armed force or any other type of armed force or any other type of force.

Some believe that the intended force is the armed force only, considering that the application or use of this force is only through aggressive war, armed attack, or aggression committed by states using their armed forces or a group affiliated with them or supported by them.

And these are based on that by referring to the phrase armed force contained in the preamble to the Charter, although the aggression was not known when the charter was developed, and we will address that later. This means that there is nothing to prevent a country from resorting to reprisals or others that do not involve On the use of force if another country commits an act contrary to international law and another group of jurists considers that there is no legal reason calling for limiting the meaning of force to armed force only, but that this could be expanded to include economic pressure, or psychological or other actions and intercede their opinion that coercion Political and economic may be a threat to independence State politician, equivalent to the seriousness of the military threat.

From this view, the elderly, and there is a third party, including Brownley and Rosalyn Higgins, tend to the opinion of Kalsen, saying that power does not include non-military coercion practiced at a low level, and they mean using coercion sufficiently to restrict the freedom of the state’s conduct against it, but affecting its national security, They believe that this is a matter that international business requires, so it is a legitimate business and is not considered an international crime but rather international harm.

If we want to adopt the concept of armed force, it is necessary to define what is meant by the weapon, does it mean explosives only?

Or weapons of prey, or is it all that causes the destruction of living things and property?

If we take the last concept, shouldn’t the economic weapon also be considered devastating? It does not lead to starvation? Likewise, the psychological and media warfare that poisons thoughts and sows fear and dread, and so can psychological pressure, coercion and propaganda be considered a weapon because they destroy the soul and mind, and from this he sees Brownley.

It is necessary to determine whether the use of agents that do not include an explosion, destruction or heat constitutes a use of force, not as microbial, biological or chemical factors such as nerve gases.

He believes that the use of these factors as weapons can be considered a use of force based on the first two points, that the aforementioned factors are described as weapons and that their use is a kind of germ warfare chemical warfare and the second point is the most important that these weapons are used to destroy life and property and are often called weapons Mass destruction is also necessary to think of a description that might be called actions such as flooding a large area in valleys leading to enemy territory or setting fires in the woods and places at the border. Are such actions and measures considered a use of force or not? Does it lead to the destruction of life and property,or not?

Adopting either of the two ideas is of great importance in arranging results, because adopting the concept of force, that is, the interpretation of distress, will deprive the aggressing countries of the union of any measure in self-defense against any unarmed aggression and vice versa, and therefore we are of the opinion that extending the concept of force to include all political pressures Psychological and economic, in addition to the use of all other forms of force referred to previously because of its response to the interest of developing countries that have often been subjected to various pressures, and that the use of force may be direct or indirect, but the state is responsible for resorting to the use of armed force The forbidden in the A charter whether it is fighting by its regular or non-developing forces or the security and police forces.

The Second Paragraph: Exceptions to the Prohibition of the Use of Force in InternationalRelations:                                                                                                   

Given the state of total prohibition of the use of force in international relations as defined in the Charter of the United Nations as previously explained in the previous demand, as if all exceptions to the principle are in response to the unlawful use of force, but they differ in terms of source, purpose and conditions for their establishment, when exposed The state for an armed attack, the charter does not prevent the state’s suspicion of using force in the form of individual or collective defense in self-defense, but this use is limited to defensive borders, until the defending state reaches the Security Council. And that the action of the Security Council in this way is not considered a defensive act but rather a coercive nature, and its goal is to maintain and restore international peace and security, but the primary criterion for distinguishing between the two actions is that the Security Council must be based on the mandate and must be frank and clear according to What is required by the rules of Chapter VII or the rules of Chapter VIII of the Charter, when it comes to a regional act, as for the act of self-defense, whether with him individually or collectively, or the act against a former enemy state, the matter does not need a mandate from the Security Council, where the right Once the victimized state is exposed to a state of armed aggression, you will Here we deal with the issue of legal self-defense or self-defense.

1- Self-Defense:                                                                                                               

The important exception to which an explicit provision is made in the Charter of the United Nations as a departure from the principle of the prohibition of the use of force in international relations is individual and collective self-defense.

So that all legal systems recognize the right to psychological defense, which is recognized as long as it is and remains so under the United Nations Charter, and Port sees that this right in primitive societies is in the hands of individuals and states to use it as they see fit. In mature and developed societies, the use of this right is within the authority of a global central organization such as the League of Nations or the United Nations, and yet the use of force for self-defense is an exceptional right in relation to the general prohibition of the use of force contained in the Charter, and in some cases it is appropriate to convert Countries use this right, regardless of the powers given to the world central organization, due to the existence of some coercive circumstances that directly affect the countries concerned, and they must protect themselves by themselves. So far, there has not been any generally accepted definition of the right to self-defense, even if there are attempts in this way.

Supporters of natural law such as Crochet, Bailey, Gentle, and Victoria see that the right to self-defense is one of the reasons for just war or that it is one of the just causes of war, and that natural law does not only support this right but rather orders states to exercise it, and in this Wolf says that any people should protect Himself and that the masses depend on individuals to secure the requirements of security and peace, but Port believes that the safest way to define self-defense is to enumerate or define the rights or matters that states resort to protect by the right of self-defense and he believes that these matters are the right to territorial integrity and the right to political independence And the right of the citizen group N and the right of the group of economic interests, whatever the matter is the essence of the right to self-defense, is the occurrence of something wrong with the state concerned, which achieves the responsibility of the wrong state.

2- The Nature of the Right to Self-Defense:                                                           

All domestic laws of states regulate the right of individuals to defend themselves and the scope and scope of the use of that right varies according to the degree of maturity of the legal system that regulates it, as it was baptized in legal systems that did not reach a large degree of maturity and left this right without restrictions while from the laws that reached sophistication and progress we find This right is restricted by many restrictions, and this matter may weaken it and reduce its importance.

It is established that the formal community authorities are the only responsible for protecting the rights of individuals within the community and have the inherent right to use force in accordance with the provisions of the law. Self-defense is considered an exceptional right and wanted on the general principle that prohibits the exercise of power within society. The right to self-defense is based on the existence of inevitable conditions that require conducting the first steps to protect the right and the soul with the knowledge of individuals, until the state’s authorities enter, and on that For you, there is a near-consensus among legal systems to regulate this right.

If we look at the international community as a unit characterized by weakness and deficiency in its bodies that prefer to ensure the implementation of the law through coercion and that guarantee international rights recognized legally, we find that sovereign states are doing what they should do, according to the theory of dual job, so the right In self-defense is an important right of every member of the international community.

In the continuous development of the international community, we find that the tendency is to establish international bodies through which states cooperate in order to maintain international peace and security. To this end, states waive some aspects of their sovereignty, and this was accompanied by the threat in them in the United Nations Charter.

In addition, the discussions that took place during the elaboration of the Charter, including the desire for the organization to dominate all forms of the use of force, and therefore it became necessary to stipulate the right to self-defense and to organize it directly, which is what happened, as the Charter organized the right to self-defense in Article 51, and returns The need to directly regulate that right and limit its scope that failure to do so would make the principle of refraining from using armed force Goa.

Whereas, the right to self-defense, regulated by the United Nations Charter, is an exception to the principle of refraining from the use of force, Article 2, paragraph 17, of the Charter of the United Nations.

3- Self-defense:                                                                                                          

Article 51 of the UN Charter states that the state has the right to collectively defend itself and that the aggressing states. To ask for aid from other countries to repel aggression, and that raised two questions. The first is: Is there an agreement between countries to request aid? The second is that is it permissible for a country to provide military aid without a request from the other country?

With regard to the first question, a dispute has been raised about the right of the state to seek assistance without a treaty, and some see the exclusion of the idea of ​​the right of states to help each other without referring to the Security Council because that makes it second in terms of maintaining international peace and security, and others see that there are no restrictions on this right As it is contained in the Charter, so the absolute should keep it released unless it is specified.

Until there is a difference between the collective actions taken by the UN Security Council and collective defense, the latter is resorted to by states. It is a measure that states take to defend themselves under their own responsibilities within the limitations of Article 51 of the Charter.

As for collective actions taken by the Security Council, they are under the responsibility of the United Nations and are carried out either in the form of sanctions or coercive acts and are explained in Article 1, first paragraphs and 24, 39-41-42 of the Charter of the United Nations. [36                                                                                   ]

Article 58 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations.

4- Conditions for Collective Self-defense:                                                               

It is understood that the use of force for the purposes of collective self-defense is not common in international life, as states usually shy away from participating in armed conflicts that they are not a party to, and although contemporary international life witnessed the conclusion of a large number of joint defense treaties and military alliances, the practices and behavior of states The real does not deny the desire to use force within the framework of collective self-defense, as cases such as these were relatively limited and non-existent and it is suspected that collective self-defense in many cases is a cover for a suit of foreign forces before there is an armed attack, in the hope that the Therefore, collective self-defense is necessary in the future, in other words it benefits from monitoring and extrapolating most cases of collective self-defense that this form of self-defense was a way to prevent an armed attack or as a precaution, and the use of military force was a rare and exceptional case Collective self-defense lies outside the territorial boundaries of the “victim” state.

Collective self-defense is surrounded by a number of complex difficulties and questions. If it is easier to theoretically distinguish between collective self-defense and military assistance that a country might provide to another country as a result of a request from the latter to respond to external interference to which it was subjected, it is difficult in practice to separate Or the distinction between them, the dividing line between them may sometimes knock to a large degree, and the few evidences on collective self-defense do not become disagreeable and widespread controversy over its legality, and this disagreement is not due to the permissibility of using force in the framework of collective self-defense, the overwhelming majority in these cases has been raised Questioned About the availability of the condition of armed attack and about the availability of an actual or real request for assistance from the victim state. A question has also been raised about Jeddah and the originality of the theory of collective self-defense. The theory was included in the folds of the United Nations Charter in the framework of Chapter Seven of it, which prompted some writers to consider it a new theory It is not a precedent for the Charter. Another difficulty arising with regard to collective self-defense is the issue of defining the nature of this right. Is it an independent right that authorizes a third country to use force in defense of a victim victim of an armed attack, or does it imply a set of rights for an individual self-defense that cannot be neglected or exercised unless it is the third country is itself a victim of the armed attack, and what are the additional conditions that must be fulfilled in order to practice it, and does that require the existence of a previous treaty?

The practice of collective self-defense is subject to the availability of the same conditions and requirements that must be met for individual self-defense, but it requires in addition to these conditions a number of other conditions from the declaration of the victim state that states that it will be subjected to an armed attack. The victim states and the third state of the common defense.

5-Exercise of the Right of the State of Self-defense against another State to protect its Right to Political Independence                                                                                 

The state resorted to these practices if other countries ignored the duty of non-interference referred to, and interfered with the affairs of the first state, and since the right to political independence and the duty not to interfere are not absolute rights, so the legitimacy of resorting to self-defense for the group of political independence rights is relative. If there are legitimate justifications for the intervention of the other country and there are some challenges imposed on the right of self-defense to protect the right to political independence, perhaps the most important of them is the right given to the Security Council to interfere in the public interest of the international community.

It is true that the seventh paragraph in Article Two of the Charter of the United Nations, prevents the United Nations from interfering in the internal affairs of states, but it returns and indicates that this prohibition does not apply to the application of coercive measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. The second limitation is the right of self-defense given to states. The other, which makes the exercise of defending the right to political independence conditional on the immediate threat being threatened. And the lack of other alternative means to avoid it, and the measures taken by the states must be commensurate with the danger resulting from the actions of other countries and the last condition is the most important conditions to be observed, this means that if the danger resulted from the first state using or threatening force Against the political independence of the state, the second state’s use of force or the threat of it, and proportionately to the danger to defend it and itself, is a legitimate self-defense.

6– Exercise of the Right of Self-defense by States against Individuals:                        

Some situations that arise from the threat against the political independence of the state may occur due to the behavior of individuals or groups for which no state is responsible for them and the best example of this appears when the concerned state takes court procedures to implement its obligations under international law, but it is not sufficient to prevent these individuals from organizing or Carrying out a campaign or when a group of individuals present in the territory of a state organizes or implements a campaign or other actions that directly affect the political independence of another country despite the fact that the first country has taken all of the measures it can to prevent them, or to implement obligations under the law For an international party to prevent the start of such actions from its territory, in other words, the measures taken by the first country are insufficient to prevent these groups from carrying out their intentions in such cases, the state that conducts such activities on its territory, has not violated international law, or has violated Any of its international obligations, so no act of self-defense may be directed against it by the other state that jeopardizes its political independence. This does not mean that the victim state must remain idle or unable to take any action to protect itself that may resort to taking actions Or procedures for self-defense except that The procedures must be directed against the individuals and groups responsible for the acts referred to, and not against the first country. In this case, the state of necessity is the justification for the union of these procedures, and not the right to self-defense, provided that the necessity is urgent, and that there is no time for reflection and management and other measures.

7- Arab Collective Defense:                                                                                         

The Arab League Charter dealt with this set out in Article 6 of it: “If it stipulated that when a state attacked the state of the person who gave the university or feared it would occur, then the aggressing state, or threatened with aggression, requests that the council be called immediately to convene.                                                                      ]

However, after the establishment of the Zionist entity, and the Arab states feeling of danger, the Joint Defense Treaty, which detailed the collective defense measures of the Arab state, was concluded. And if that needs to be reviewed now, and in its preamble, the primary goal is to formulate security and peace, in accordance with the principles of the Arab League, the Charter of the United Nations and its goals.

Article 2 of the treaty has shown that every armed attack on any one or more countries or their forces is an attack on everyone, so states committed in pursuance of the right to legitimate defense – individual and collective – from their entity to initiate with the assistance of the assaulted countries by all possible means, including force. Armed forces, to return the aggression and restore security and peace to its quorum, provided that you inform the University Council and the Security Council of the attack and the measures taken.

Implications of the Use of Force for the Reality of International Political Action:        

The frequent resort to military power at the level of relations between countries has become a clear reflection on the international scene so that this scene is not free from conflicts and war, then the increasing violence as a result of the large number of military interventions. The causes of these wars are limited to a set of reasons, whether economic and political, and the main reasons are also the desire In expanding the spheres of influence and possessing economic and military power in a manner that serves the interests of the great powers that see it has the right to arrange international conditions in a manner that serves their interests and achieves its goals of control and control in order to extend influence over the weak countries, and among the most prominent powers A punch in this era, we find the United States of America is the country that was able to violate international law and fails the principle of the prohibition of resorting to military force and thus the United States of America was able to create for itself public policies based on a set of goals including controlling the countries or most of the Arab countries in order to ensure their interests then The seizure of oil, then control of the oilsprings, production and returns, as if it would control the rest of the world, then put America in a position to limit any attack that threatens it, and thus the United States of America wanted to create an international scene commensurate with its goals and then market its projects. That depends on force, war, and destruction under the pretext of reform and change, and all of that is done by military, economic, and political force. Thus, this impulsion and continued violation by the United States of the provisions of international law and its refusal to comply with the charters of the United Nations will produce a set of conflicts and wars that will have a profound impact on The human and civilizational reality of man is the force that is used today is more deadly and destructive, so that countries were destroyed and removed from the context of history and the devastation of Afghanistan, and through the destruction of Iraq not far from us, then an attempt to sabotage Lebanon as the weapons that were used in this Wars that made them primitive and backward countries. Thus, America and its allies were able to break up the Arab situation and create a series of increasing conflicts without solutions and multiplication of sectarian and racial strife as in Lebanon and Iraq, and the increase in the phenomenon of religious conflicts in some countries and the creation of economic crises in the Arab world and then spreading Western culture to waste milestones The Arab character, all this is done by causing conflicts and wars and relying on the logic of military power, which is considered as a preliminary stage of destruction and sabotage and obstructing all Arab progress and social development plans. It is these and other reasons that have contributed to the emergence of unbalanced conflicts and wars in the Arab world in which there is no element of military and strategic balance. So that these countries could not confront the American military power and its allies, and it was difficult for them to confront the aggression that will be reflected on the reality of international life and establish a field of violence and ongoing rivalry, which will lead to the emergence of most difficulties in the face of peaceful solutions in order to reduce these conflicts and future wars that may It leads to the destabilization of global security in light of the frequent resort to the use of military force and the threat of its use, which will create unforeseen consequences and will have repercussions for the international community, which will lack the security and stability that has been lost due to lack of respect for the principle of prohibiting the use of military force. For strength in international relations.

Excessive Use of Force:                                                                                           

It is generally recognized in international relations that power is the basis of relations between countries, and power in its broadest sense is the ability to influence the behavior of other countries to align with the goals of the state that exercises power, and strength is a cumulative, multi-directional process, which is the basis for classifying countries on the scale of power, and countries are classified To super powers, big countries, influential countries and small ones.

Countries are also classified in terms of their goals as power states that seek control, possession, and influence such as America, Russia, Iran, and Israel, for example, and humanitarian countries that seek and harness their potential for humanitarian goals such as the Emirates. The elements and components of power vary from one country to another, but it is noticed through the geographical distribution of power that small states have important elements of power, and this may lead to what might be called a theory of integration in the elements of power. Power is linked to the political behavior of the state, and to its national goals, and these goals revolve around hegemony, influence, and geographical expansion, and these goals are incompatible with the goals of other countries, especially the power countries that have the same goals. This explains why we rely on self-power to protect the interests and goals of the state, as there is no state that does not seek to inflate its power elements, especially the military force, which is the main component or component of the state’s power. This is embodied in the huge budgets allocated by countries to support and possess the latest weapons. Here lies the dilemma or problem of force in international relations, or what can be summarized by the power equation: military power plus the nation’s national behavior equals more resort to force, more rivalries, conflicts and wars between states, and more excessive use of force.

Therefore, throughout all stages of the development of international relations, military power was a prominent feature of these relations, and dependence on military power increased with the emergence and emergence of the nation-state in the aftermath of the Westphalia Conference in 1648, and since that date and power have been linked to the national behavior of the state and its basis of domination, control, and expansion, and the state’s dependence on Maintaining its security mainly on its own strength. This behavior was coupled with mistrust and the security dilemma that still governs the political behavior of states, since Thucydides who laid the seeds for the theory of power or realism today, which is the dominant and explained theory of relations between states, and the basis of this theory is that evil is the primary component in the behavior of individuals, which is also transmitted at the level of the same country.

This realism has its supporters in all countries of the world, and it is not confined to the power countries only, but even to the smaller states, which explain to us the spread of wars and conflicts between countries, and also explains to us this excessive use of force in its military dimension. The danger in the theory of power is that it is no longer a monopoly on states only, but that actors other than the same countries, especially groups and movements of extremist and ideological and ideological extremes of all Islamic or non-Islamic tendencies are able to possess power in all its forms, and this may increase the complications of the excessive use of force Indeed, the latter groups do not adhere to any obstacles in their use of force, which may lead other countries to use force to a higher degree. The phenomenon of armed force is widespread in all international and regional conflicts, especially in the Arab region. The problem of the use of armed force is that it does not resolve existing conflicts, may impose a state of power, but it is temporary, and is linked to a change in the balance of forces, which is often variable, and unstable, as shifts in power equations are a clear feature of contemporary relations, and therefore excessive force has proven Its failure to resolve many disputes.

There are two problems related to the use of force, the first is the exclusion of moral norms and their dehumanization of force, there is no room for moral and human considerations, and therefore the victim always innocent civilians, and the second problem is the legitimacy of force, and here the role of the United Nations that provides this legitimacy to the use of force arises, and this legitimacy takes two forms, The international mandate for an international coalition uses force within the framework of this mandate. The second form is what the United Nations can do directly. Another problem is added to the military force, which is the problem of the political goals of the armed force.

Whatever the justifications for the use of military force are available, but they remain unable to achieve the goals behind their use. Rather, excessive use of force will widen the gap of hatred, hatred, and desire to kill and take revenge, and the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ongoing military confrontations in the occupied Palestinian territories And the excessive use of force on the part of Israel must lead to more force on the Palestinian side. The years of conflict have demonstrated the failure of Israel to achieve its security and survival through repression and the exercise of excessive force against the Palestinians, the alternative to excessive military force activating the power of international legitimacy, the role of the United Nations in achieving a balance in rights between states, and working to settle international disputes by peaceful means, dialogue And the integration of rights between countries and activating the values ​​of cooperation and dialogue between religions. The message of all religions is dialogue, non-violence, and the prohibition of human killing.

Recommendations:                                                                                                 

The current international situation is witnessing an abortion of international peace and security, because the world today lives in a state of imposing hegemony through the use of military force, and this will generate feelings of hatred and hostility between peoples, so how can the international situation stabilize and there are those who work to destroy all elements of stability and balance The international reform, and that the proper reform will not come until after the restoration of the prestige of the United Nations and its resort to it in the event of conflicts and wars, and that the excessive use of military force and unilateral action will only bring international crises that will be reflected on all, an academic effort and a political effort through International agreements It is binding on all parties of the international community, and it is mobilized and signed.

References:

Dr. Muhammad Al-Husseini Moselhi, Human Rights between Islamic Sharia and International Law, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabia, 1988, p. 21.

Dr. Abdel-Wahid Muhammad al-Far, International Crimes and the Power of Punishment over them, The Arab Renaissance House, Cairo University Center for Printing and Publishing, First Edition, 1996, p. 540.

Dr . Ismail Al-Ghazal, Terrorism and International Law, Beirut 1990, p. 5. Dr . Imam Hassanein Khalil, Terrorism between Criminalization and Legitimacy, 2001, p. 31.

See United Nations documents on international regulation, volume VI, page 703 / A / 3/1/1 19

Ibrahim Mohamed Hassan: “The International Conflict in the Arab Gulf: The Iraqi Aggression Against Kuwait: Arab and International Dimensions and Results”, Al-Shiraa Foundation, First Edition, 1996, Pg: 88

Ibrahim Muhammad Hassan: “The International Conflict in the Arab Gulf,” previous reference, p. 243.

Abdul-Wahab Al-Afandi: “Comedy and Tragedy, the War on Terror Afghanistan, Model 12, Beirut, September 2006,” p. 12.

See, for example, Dr. Muhammad Khalaf, The Right to Sharia Defense in International Criminal Law: A Comparative, Analytical and Comparative Study, Second Edition, Dar Al-Haqiqa Press, Bani Ghazi, pp. 485-497.

See General Assembly Resolution of September 12, 2001/2 condemning these attacks, p. 56.

Ja`far Wafaa and Ja`far Numan: “Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Accusations and Truths”, Al-Mustaqbal Al-Arabi, No. 306, p .: 45.

Frank Ritesh Fett: “New on the causes of the Iraq war,” Issue 11068, dated 10/24/2005

Khalil Al-Anani: “The Arab System from Structuralism to Dismantling,” A Reading of the Implications of the Israeli War on Lebanon, Journal of Arab Affairs, No. 127 Fall 2006, pp. 59-67.

Ahmed Abdel Halim: “The Global Strategy for the United States of America, International Politics”, Issue 147 January 2002.

Muhammad Taha Badawi: An Introduction to the Science of International Relations, Beirut 1972, p. 103

Article 33-1: The parties to any conflict whose continuation would jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security are to seek its solution, starting with negotiations, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement, or to resort to regional agencies and organizations or other peaceful means of their choice.

Salah Shalaby Abdel-Badi: “International Organizations in International Law and Islamic Thought”, Second Edition Cairo, 1996, p. 97.

PURTICH SAM BAUD : “La définition du l’agression par l’organisation des nations unies”,

R.G.D.I.F, 1970, p : 835.

If Article 52 of the Charter stipulates for Chapter VIII on regional organizations 1 – that nothing in this Charter prevents regional organizations or agencies from dealing with matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security, what regional action is valid from them and appropriate as long as these regional organizations or agencies and their activities are appropriate With the purposes and principles of the United Nations, 2- Members of the United Nations who enter into such organizations or who compose such agencies replace every effort to procure a peaceful solution to local disputes through these regional organizations or by this agency, before submitting them to the Security Council 3. The Security Council should encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes in a manner such regional arrangements or by those agencies.

See about this dispute::

Islam Olin: The Conflict between Bargaining Skills and Building Alliances, www.islamonline.net.

Patrick Seale: “The Goals of the Israeli War on Lebanon 10/28/2008,” Arab and American International Studies Center, http://www.icaws.org/site.

Encyclopedia and Free Wikipedia Theory of International Conflict, http //ar.wikipedia.org

Ahmad Babata Al-Alawi: “The Age Forum, the era of war, politics and the logic of conflict”, http // www.alasr.ws

Rosalyn HIGGINS : “General cour on public international law”, Academie de droit international, 1991, V. 230, p : 328.

Rosalyn HIGGINS : “General cours on public law international”, op.cit, p : 328-369.

SORENSEN Max : “Manual of public international law”, N.Y, 1968, p : 747

MC DOUGAL ANDF ELLICIANO : “Law and minimum world public order”, NBW haven London, 1961, p : 29.

Wright Quincy : “International law and the united nation”, N.Y, 1961, p : 59

Aroneuno Eugène : “La défention de l’agression”, Paris, 1958, p : 32-66

Aroneanu Eugène : op.cit, p : 32-66