Thu, Apr 27

POL 309-800, International Law
SUNY Oswego | Spring 2021
Dr. Craig Warkentin

  • Ch. 10, The Use of Force Including War (503-527)

  • Define force, self-defense, and collective self-defense
  • Articulate what constitutes "the threat or use of force"
  • Explain when/how states can engage in self-defense

  • sine qua non (520)


P. 507

  1. What were the preconditions for the exercise of self-defense articulated by Secretary Webster?
  2. The British argued that they were justified in anticipating further attacks by the Caroline and that therefore they were entitled to exercise self-defense. Consider articles 2(4) and 51 of the United Nations Charter. Do they permit anticipatory self-defense or must an armed attack precede the right to self-defense?

P. 521

  1. What types of action, in the Court's view, are sufficient to amount to an armed attack?
  2. Why were Nicaragua's activities not sufficient to constitute an armed attack on El Salvador?
  3. If State A supplies the rebels in State B with weapons and logistical support, does that constitute an armed attack by State A on State B? Would such action constitute a threat or use of force by State A against State B?
  4. What events must occur before State C is permitted to exercise collective self-defense on behalf of State D against State E?
  5. What weight did the Court give to the failure of the United States to report its actions on behalf of El Salvador to the Security Council?
  6. If State A has used force, not amounting to an armed attack, against State B, does State C have a right to use force against State A by exercising a right to collective forceful counter-measures?
  7. What actions of the United States were held to constitute a threat or use of force against Nicaragua?
  8. Why did the Court not consider the United States actions against Nicaragua necessary or proportionate in relation to Nicaragua's activities against El Salvador?

P. 527

  1. What did the Court require the U.S. to prove before it was willing to examine whether the U.S. had engaged in permissible self-defense?
  2. Why did the U.S. fail to convince the Court that its actions were a legitimate use of force in self-defense?