ULUSLARARASI KAMU HUKUKU II - Deneme Sınavı - 15

It was accepted for many centuries that States
can choose between diplomacy and use of force to
achieve their goals. Nevertheless, random use force
constitute a threat to the peace and to any system
created among States. According to these, the correct anwer is B.

Another issue is that States would resort to
force for a myriad of reasons. The reason would be
a long-lasting rivalry and its costs, belief of success
despite costs of an armed conflict, or gains even if
they are not expected consciously (Patchen, 1988:
258). Moreover, States would resort to force to
compensate the losses when they consider a right
was breached, and more importantly, to right a
wrong, as a means to bring justice. According to these, the phrase in option d can not be said about the reasons of states.

During Antiquity and the Roman Empire,
philosophers paid much attention to the question
of just war. In Antiquity, it was expected to have
a just cause and that should also be declared. War
needed to have a just cause, but what could such
causes be? From Aristoteles to Cicero, there have
been many answers: breach of an armistice or
treaty, aggression against an ally of the Roman
Empire, breach of diplomatic immunities, breach
of territorial rights, refusal of the right of passage,
etc. so, the coorect answer is C.

In the nineteenth century, States felt that there need to be some restrictions at least, since any small
friction had the capacity to lead a full-fledged war that was not intended by either party. The result of it is
the invention of concepts such as pacific blockade, embargo, retaliation, reprisal, intervention, etc. all
hinting that these are not war, but methods of limited use of force. NAmely, the correct answer is option E.

The League of Nations was founded as a post-First World War organization and included in the postwar peace treaties as a part of the peace deal. Its Covenant required the States to apply methods of pacific
settlement of disputes before going to war against each other. If these methods proved to be unsuccessful,
then States could resort to war lawfully under the terms of the Covenant (LN, 1920).

In the Preamble, in order to achieve international peace and security, parties declared their acceptance
of the obligation not to resort to war. According to Article 10, “The Members of the League undertake to
respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence
of all Members of the League.

First observation to be made is that Article 11 regulates only “war”, but not limited methods not
amounting to war. In other words, it was not regulating all occasions of use of force. Moreover, it was
not forbidding resort to war on all occasions either.

Furthermore, according to Article 15/6, if
the Council reaches to a unanimous decision, parties would not resort to war against any party which complies with this decision. In other words, it was
possible for the parties to claim that other party
were not complying with the decision and resort to
war against it on the basis of this claim.

According to this information, the sentence given in option D cannot be said about the era. We can even say that option D belongs to the UN period.

Definition of
Aggression resolution determines the acts below as
acts of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces
of a State of the territory of another State,
or any military occupation;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a
State against the territory of another State
or the use of any weapons by a State against
the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a
State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on
the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air
fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which
are within the territory of another State
with the agreement of the receiving State,
in contravention of the conditions provided
for in the agreement or any extension of
their presence in such territory beyond the
termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its
territory, which it has placed at the disposal
of another State, to be used by that other
State for perpetrating an act of aggression
against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State
of armed bands, groups, irregulars or
mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed
force against another State of such gravity
as to amount to the acts listed above, or its
substantial involvement therein.

Namely, the phrase in option B is a wrong definition of the one of the acts of aggression.

The crucial question about Article 2/4 is that
how to interpret the prohibition on the use of
force: narrow or broad? The most important
argument about the scope of Article 2/4 is related
to the interpretation of the place or effect of
the term “against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations.” Is it possible to imagine an
occasion of use of force which is consistent with
the purposes of the UN, and not in breach of the
territorial integrity or political independence of a
State, or breach it in a limited and/or temporary
way? One of these possibilities was considered as
the protection of nationals abroad who are in
danger or under threat. Another one was wars of
self-determination. so, the correct answer is option C.

By the terms of Article 51 of the Charter, “the
inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack occurs against a Member
of the United Nations” was safeguarded. This
provided the legal basis for the use of force by a
single member or a group of members in case of an
armed attack without any requirement of Security
Council authorization. The right of individual or
collective self-defense requires no action by the
Security Council before the actual use of force.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a
Member of the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. Measures taken
by Members in the exercise of this right of selfdefense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in any way affect
the authority and responsibility of the Security
Council under the present Charter to take at any
time such action as it deems necessary in order
to maintain or restore international peace and
security.”

Namely, the correct answer is A.

Article 51 acknowledges the inherent right of self-defense, which is not without limits. so, the correct anwer is given in option A.

After NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, some commentators agreed that some form of exception to thevprohibition may be gaining acceptance. One supporter of this view offered certain criteria under which armed force may become justified, even in the absence of any authorization by the Council (Cassese, 1999, 27). These were:
• gross breaches of human rights involving loss of innocent life amounting to crimes against humanity,
• central authorities unable to put an end to those crimes or responsible of them itself,
• the Security Council unable to take coercive action because of the use of veto,
• exhaustion of all peaceful avenues,
• a group of States(not a single State) deciding
to try to halt atrocities with the support or
at least the non-opposition of the majority
of the member States of the UN,
• vi) armed force being used exclusively
for the limited purpose of stopping the
atrocities and restoring respect for human
rights, not for any goal going beyond this
limited purpose.

According to these, the correct answer is E.

The League of Nations was founded as a post-First World War organization and included in the post-war peace treaties as a part of the peace deal. The correct option is D.

The Covenant required parties of a dispute to go for one of the three methods of pacific settlement: arbitration, judicial settlement, or inquiry by the Council (Article 12). After applying them and obtaining no result, the States would then be allowed to take any measures they deemed necessary. e only restriction stipulated in Article 12 is the ‘cooling period’ of three months before resorting to war. The correct option is C.

Since the adoption of the United Nations (UN) Charter, there has been a continuous debate regarding the provisions governing the use of force. e Charter permitted use of force only in self-defense (self- defense in the Charter, and in some varieties of English) and in collective enforcement action.  According to Article 2/4, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  According to the generally- accepted view, the article prohibits only armed use of force. Economic or political pressure is not in the scope of the Article (Asrat, 1991, 39-40). Another generally-accepted interpretation of the terms of the Article determines that domestic use of force is not covered.  Prohibition brought by Article 2/4 encompasses not only the actual use of force but also the threat of force. The correct option is E.

Under customary international law, reprisals are lawful if certain criteria are met. These criteria identified at the Naulilaa Arbitration were that there must have been a prior deliberate violation of international law; that an unsuccessful attempt must have been made at redress, and that the action was taken in reprisal be proportionate to the injury suffered (Keskin, 1998, 96). Reprisals would necessarily involve a violation of Article 2/4, since it is not self-defense. The Security Council has repeatedly condemned reprisals. The texts of Article 2/4 and Article 51 clearly do not allow reprisals (Higgins, 1998, 241-242). Reprisals undertaken in peacetime are unlawful unless they fall within the framework of the principle of self-defense. The correct option is D.

Various measures of self-help ranging from economic retaliation to the use of force have historically been used (Keskin, 1998, 89). Since the establishment of the Charter regime, there are basically three categories of compulsion open to States under international law: retorsion, reprisal, and self-defense. The correct option is A.

Retorsion is the adoption of an unfriendly and harmful, albeit lawful, act as a method of retaliation against the injurious activities of another State. Examples are the severance of diplomatic relations or expulsion of aliens. It is a legitimate method of showing displeasure in a way that injures the other State within the bounds of legality. The correct option is C.

In summary, Article 39 gives the Council two duties: First, it needs to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. en, it needs to decide what kind of action is going to be taken by the UN and its member States. The correct option is D.

P5 members are the US, the Russian Federation, China, Great Britain, and France. The correct option is B.

Article 51 acknowledges the inherent right of self-defense, which is not without limits. First of all, an action taken in self-defense must conform with the Caroline formula. In 1837, British troops attacked and sank an American ship, the Caroline, by burning and sending it down the Niagara Falls, because the ship was being used to provide supplies to insurgents against the British rule in Canada. The US protested and demanded reparations. In the course of the diplomatic exchanges, Secretary of State Webster articulated the two conditions essential to the legitimacy of the use of force under the right of self-defense. These conditions are necessity and proportionality. The correct option is D.

Classic humanitarian intervention can be defined as those instances in which a State unilaterally uses military force to intervene in the territory of another State with the purpose of protecting a group of people from life-threatening violations of the government. A more compact definition would be “a military intervention undertaken by a State or group of States outside the umbrella of the UN in order to secure human rights in another country”. The correct option is E.