EXPLOITING SELF-DEFENCE: UNPACKING THE

MISUSE OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW

PRESENTED BY PRATHWIRAJ KADAM (24BA069)

 INTRODUCTION 2

• The right to self-defense is a principle in international law,

allowing states to protect themselves against armed attacks.

• However, this right has often been misused by powerful states

to justify aggressive actions under the pretext of self-defence.

• This presentation explores the historical origins, legal

framework, key case studies, and challenges in interpreting self-
defence under international law.

NLUO / 2025
 HISTORICAL ORIGIN 3

Caroline Dispute (1837)

A ship was suspected of Daniel Webster (on behalf This principle introduced
being used by rebel of the US) stated : Self- the idea of anticipatory
individuals for defense is justified
> only self-defense, where a
when The threat is state can act before an
supplying arms to
instant, overwhelming, actual attack if an
Canadian rebels by
leaving no choice of imminent threat exists.
British forces, which means, and no moment
was secured on the for deliberation.
American river side.
Forces went into
American land and
killed twelve American NLUO / 2025

individuals while
 SELF-DEFENCE UNDER ARTICLE 51 OF THE UN 4

CHARTER
• Article 51 provides states with the inherent right to individual and
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.
• How this right is subject to strict conditions:
Necessity – The attack must be unavoidable.
Proportionality – The response must match the scale of the attack.
Immediacy – The defense must be immediate after the attack.
• Unlike the Caroline principle, Article 51 does not explicitly allow
anticipatory self-defense—it only permits action after an attack occurs.
ARTICLE 2(4) AND ARTICLE 51 5

• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter :Prohibits the “use of force

against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state
• Article 51 Exception: Allows force only in self-defense
after an attack
ISSUES

• states justify the use of force under article 51 while

violating article 2 (4)
• definition of armed attack is ambiguous
 CRITERIA FOR ARMED ATTACK 6

• The definition of "armed attack" is crucial in determining whether

self-defense under Article 51 is justified.
• ICJ (International Court of Justice) Jurisprudence: In Nicaragua v.
United States (1986), the ICJ ruled that not all uses of force qualify
NLUO / 2025

as an "armed attack" under Article 51.

• The ruling introduced the "gravity threshold"—only force that has
sufficient scale and effects is considered an armed attack.
• Lesser uses of force, like border skirmishes, do not justify self-
defense under Article 51 but may still violate Article 2(4).
• The traditional interpretation of Article 51 required that an armed
attack originate from a sovereign state.
• However, evolving interpretations in international law recognize
that non-state actors can also commit armed attacks, provided
certain conditions are met.
INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE SELF-DEFENSE 9
UNDER ARTICLE 51
Individual Self-Defense Collective Self-Defense

• A sovereign state’s right Recognized under Article 51,

to defend itself following allowing states to assist
an armed attack. another state under attack.
• This principle is The legal basis of collective
reinforced through ICJ self-defense stems from the
jurisprudence, which has need to counter threats
upheld a narrow through multilateral action
interpretation of armed while maintaining adherence
attack as the trigger for to international law.
self-defense.
 MISUSE OF SELF-DEFENCE 7

Misinterpretation of Article 51 Some states have sought to

has led to challenges in broaden the definition of armed
distinguishing between attack to include potential or
legitimate self-defense and acts indirect threats.
of aggression framed as
states have acted unilaterally without
defensive measures.
proper reporting, undermining the role
of the Security Council in maintaining
The UN Charter does not
international peace and security.
explicitly recognize preemptive
self-defense. the ICJ and other
international bodies have
consistently reinforced a strict
interpretation of Article 51,
limiting it to actual armed
NLUO / 2025
attacks.
 CHALLENGES 8

The Controversy of SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST UN SECURITY

Anticipatory Self- NON-STATE ACTORS COUNCIL’S ROLE AND
Defense LIMITATIONS
The UN Charter does not Challenge is determining • Article 51 requires states to
explicitly allow preemptive whether self-defense report self-defense measures
self-defense, yet states justify applies when the armed to the UN Security Council
striking first if they perceive attack originates from a immediately.
an imminent threat. non-state actor operating • The Security Council is
from another state’s responsible for determining
territory. collective measures, ensuring
ICJ has ruled that: that self-defense claims are
• Mere presence of non-
legitimate. States often act
state actors does not
unilaterally and justify it later,
justify military action
bypassing the Security Council.
against the host state.
• This weakens the collective
THANK YOU