Note to readers
Oops! An earlier outline of this article was distributed by error. The correct versiin follows.
Revenge has no place in international law.
In the famous Naulilaa arbitration case (1928), the arbitrators held that armed reprisals are not permissible under international law.
That prohibition of armed reprisals has become part of customary international law.
It is also contained in the prohibition of the threat or use of force which is the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter.
It is clearly restated in the 1970 U.N. General Assembly ”Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970),” which is generally accepted as an authentic interpretation of key provisions of the Charter.1
In its interpretation of the prohibition of the threat or use of force contained in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter, the Declaration unequivocally reaffirms the principle, as follows:
States have a duty to refrain from any acts of reprisal involving the use of force.
The concept of revenge is not only prohibited by the U.N. Charter but also contradicts the fundamental approach of the Charter to the use of force. That scheme abolished the old concept of war and being a party to war (except in the narrow context of the laws of war or international humanitarian law whose norms rest on pre-Charter concepts).
In its stead, the Charter introduced a blanket prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state except in the case of self-defense against an armed attack as authorized by Article 51 of the Charter. Two other exceptions, the use of force authorized by the Security Council or by regional organizations with the approval of the Security Council are today of little relevance.
Consequently, we have the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2 (4), and the exception of individual or collective self-defense authorized by Article 51. The exercise of the right of self-defense is subject to the twin requirements of necessity to bring the attack to a halt, and proportionality in the response.
The right of self-defense does not include any concept of revenge.
In short, revenge has no place international law.
James Rowles is a former Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and professor of international law at other universities.
U.N. General Assembly Resolution No. 2625, “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970)”, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (1970)).
***
Support the Author
Your author needs your support.
You may sign up for a free subscription. To receive all of the content as soon as it is published and to support the newsletter, please upgrade to a Paid or Founding Member subscription. To do so, click on the “Subscribe now” button below.
Alternatively, you may make a contribution to the author’s Go Fund Me appeal by clicking on the last button below. Go Fund Me does not take 10% as Substack does.