The International Law on the Use of Force: A Case Study of Russia and Ukraine

Abstract

Background and Aims: The principle of prohibiting the use of force in international relations is enshrined in the United Nations Charter to require member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. If such principles are violated or violated, the invaded state can use force to defend itself. The purpose of this article is to present and analyze whether the exercise of preemptive self-defense rights can be done by international law under Article 51. of the Charter of the United Nations. Russia's attack on Ukraine constitutes an international use of force prohibited by Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and does not fall within the exception to Russia's exercise of its right of self-defense or preemptive self-defense rights referred to in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and is therefore unlawful under international law. From the consideration of Article, International Customary Law, International Court of Justice and International Lawyer Opinion.

Methodology: This study used document analysis and related research methods. Analyze the content and present it descriptively according to the study objectives.

Results: It found that the right to self-defense, which is an exception to the use of force under international law, does not include the right to preemptive self-defense for several reasons. (1) According to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, an armed attack must occur before a state can have the right to self-defense. (2) There is no clear conclusion on the definition or definition of the right to preemptive self-defense under the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations at the time of drafting and negotiation. (3) Considering the different multilingual texts, the exercise of the right to preemptive self-defense of Article 51 cannot be done because it is contrary to the purposes and purposes of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. (4) Based on customary international law the exercise of the right to self-defense exists only in the event of an attack that has already occurred. It does not include establishing rules to enable States to exercise their right to preemptive self-defense, and this preference is not guaranteed in the principles of customary international law. (5) To date, there has been no judgment of the International Court of Justice that directly addresses this issue. And (6) The opinion of most international lawyers is that states do not have the sole right to use force as a precautionary measure because it is a misinterpretation of exceptions to the point of undermining the principle prohibiting the use of force. In summary, Russia's use of military force against Ukraine violates both international law and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and does not fall into exception Article 51 of Russia's right to self-defense and Charter 7.

Conclusion: Anticipatory self-defense in waste management is not recognized by international law, due to several reasons such as the limitations of the UN Charter, shortcomings in Article 51 considerations, and conflicts with principles of customary international law. The contradiction in the relationship between self-defense and the prohibition on the use of force in the United Nations Charter reflects the lack of clarity in the conclusions of international law.