Had fun reading the piece. I am a bit confused as to how a state can use force against a non-state actor. I understand that in contemporary international law, it is widely practiced and tolerated. But Articles 2(4) and 51 specifically engage states as confirmed by the Wall AO. So, what is the status of this practice now, is it a customary principle now?
Hi Nurun, so glad you had fun reading and thanks for your comment!
So, you’re right that the Wall AO specifically supports the ‘states acting in self-defence against states (and not NSAs)’ model (para 139).
But actually, Art 51 UN Charter doesn’t explicitly say that a state can respond to an attack of another state. So many interpret that an ordinary reading of Art 51 supports the view that non state actors can be targeted.
And answer your specific question: Yes, it’s now considered customary because of evolved state practice. Not every state in the world agrees to it of course, but I’d say a majority do.
Had fun reading the piece. I am a bit confused as to how a state can use force against a non-state actor. I understand that in contemporary international law, it is widely practiced and tolerated. But Articles 2(4) and 51 specifically engage states as confirmed by the Wall AO. So, what is the status of this practice now, is it a customary principle now?
Hi Nurun, so glad you had fun reading and thanks for your comment!
So, you’re right that the Wall AO specifically supports the ‘states acting in self-defence against states (and not NSAs)’ model (para 139).
But actually, Art 51 UN Charter doesn’t explicitly say that a state can respond to an attack of another state. So many interpret that an ordinary reading of Art 51 supports the view that non state actors can be targeted.
And answer your specific question: Yes, it’s now considered customary because of evolved state practice. Not every state in the world agrees to it of course, but I’d say a majority do.
Hope that helps! ☺️