Use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes

International Law · Human rights, conflict and institutions. The idea in plain words, the rules to remember, the mistake to avoid and a worked example, written and checked by Mega Lecture.

Test this topic free All International Law topics

The idea

The UN Charter starts from a general ban. Article 2(4) forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There are two exceptions: the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under Article 51 if an armed attack occurs, and force authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII. That second route is collective security: the members act together against an aggressor.

Because force is banned, states must settle disputes peacefully. Article 33 lists the means. Diplomatic means (negotiation, good offices, mediation, inquiry, conciliation) leave the outcome to the parties; legal means (arbitration and judicial settlement) produce a binding decision.

Rules to remember

Article 2(4): no threat or use of force. Article 51: self-defence if an armed attack occurs, reported at once to the Security Council, until the Council acts.
Self-defence must be necessary and proportionate. Caroline (1837): necessity that is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.
Nicaragua case (1986): collective self-defence needs the victim's declaration that it was attacked and its request for help.
Chapter VII: Article 41 measures not involving armed force (sanctions); Article 42 armed force.
Security Council substantive decisions: 9 of 15 votes with no permanent member voting against; an abstention is not a veto.
Good offices: third party only brings the sides together. Mediation: third party proposes terms. Inquiry: fact-finding. Conciliation: a commission proposes non-binding terms.
Arbitration: the parties choose the arbitrators, often by a compromis, and the award binds. Permanent Court of Arbitration: Hague Convention 1899, seat at The Hague.

Common mistake

Students say any hostile act allows self-defence. Article 51 requires an armed attack; economic pressure or a diplomatic insult does not qualify. Also, mediation and conciliation give proposals only, while an arbitral award is binding.

Worked example

State A bans all trade with State B, causing B serious economic loss. B replies by bombing A's main port and claims self-defence under Article 51. Is B's claim valid?

Article 51 allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member.
A trade ban, however harmful, involves no armed force and is not an armed attack.
B's bombing is itself a use of force against A's territory, which Article 2(4) prohibits, and no Security Council authorisation exists.

Answer: No. B cannot rely on Article 51; its bombing breaches Article 2(4), and B should have used the peaceful means of Article 33.

Ask about this

Type what you are stuck on. The helper finds the explanation, worked examples and the notes to read, free and instant.

Keep going

← Human rights law International humanitarian law →Take a International Law test