THE LAW AGAINST WAR THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FORCE IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW2025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

THE LAW AGAINST WAR THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FORCE IN CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAWPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Introduction1

1 A Choice of Method4

Ⅰ The Terms of the Methodological Debate on the Non-Use of Force： the Extensive Versus the Restrictive Approach5

A.The Extensive Approach to the Customary Prohibition of the Use of Force6

B.The Restrictive Approach to the Customary Prohibition of the Use of Force15

Ⅱ Methodological Approach of this Book27

A.Reliance on a Novel Right29

B.The Acceptance of the Modification of the Legal Rule by the International Community of States as a Whole34

2 What do ‘Use of Force’ and ‘Threat of Force’ mean？50

Ⅰ What does’Force’ mean？51

A.The Boundary between Military Force and Police Measures52

B.Determining the Threshold： ‘Force’ within the Meaning of Article 2（4） of the Charter66

Ⅱ What does ‘Threat of Force’ mean？92

A.The Restrictive Meaning of ‘Threat’ under Article 2（4） of the Charter93

B.The Scope of the Prohibition of Threat： the Absence of any Specific Regime for the Contemplated Use of Force111

3 Do the Prohibition of the Use of Force and Self-defence Apply to Non-State Actors？126

Ⅰ Exclusion of Non-State Political Entities from the Rule’s Scope of Application127

A.Inapplicability of the Rule Prohibiting the Use of Force to Civil Wars127

B.Inapplicability of the Rule to National Liberation Struggles135

C.The Case of Territories with Entities of Controversial Legal Status149

Ⅱ Exclusion of Private Groups from the Rule’s Scope of Application160

A.Maintaining ‘International Relations’ as Relations among States： the Letter and Spirit of the Rule162

B.Maintaining ‘International Relations’ as Relations between States： the Interpretation of Texts in Practice174

C.Maintaining ‘International Relations’ as Relations between States： the Works of the International Law Commission and of the International Court of Justice186

4 Can Circumstances Precluding Unlawfulness be Invoked to Justify a Use of Force？198

Ⅰ Inadmissibility in Principle199

A.The Peremptory Character of the Rule in Article 2（4） of the Charter200

B.Inadmissibility of Circumstances Precluding Unlawfulness Not Provided for by the Charter213

Ⅱ Inadmissibility Confirmed in Practice225

A.Precedents Attesting to States’ General Reluctance to Invoke Circumstances Precluding Unlawfulness225

B.Precedents Attesting Unequivocal Condemnation of Armed Reprisals234

C.The Rare Precedents where Circumstances Precluding Unlawfulness have been Invoked to Justify the Use of Force236

5 Intervention by Invitation249

Ⅰ The General Legal Regime of Military Intervention by Invitation250

A.The Possibility of Consenting to Armed Intervention within the Limits of Peremptory Law （fus Cogens）250

B.The Requirement for Consent of the State’s Highest Authorities259

C.The Existence of ‘Validly Given’ Consent266

Ⅱ The Legal Regime of Military Intervention by Invitation in an Internal Conflict276

A.The Problem of Concurrent Governments277

B.The Problem of the Purpose of the Intervention by Invitation288

6 Intervention Authorised by the UN Security Council311

Ⅰ The General Legal Regime of Authorised Military Intervention312

A.The Lawfulness of Military Intervention Authorised by the Security Council312

B.The Unlawfulness of Military Intervention ‘Authorised’ by Another UN Body or by Another Subject of International Law329

Ⅱ The Problem of Presumed Authorisation348

A.The Absence of Recognition of Presumed Authorisation in Practice349

B.Refusals and Obstacles of Principle to Recognition of a Presumed Authorisation390

7 Self-Defence401

Ⅰ ’Armed Attack’ According to Article 51 of the Charter402

A.‘Preventive Self-Defence’ Theories406

B.The Question of ‘Indirect Aggression’443

Ⅱ Necessity and Proportionality470

A.The Limit of Necessary Measures Adopted by the Security Council472

B.The General Meaning of Conditions of Necessity and Proportionality479

8 A Right of Humanitarian Intervention？495

Ⅰ Non-Recognition in Legal Texts497

A.The Dismissal of the Right of Humanitarian Intervention in Classical Legal Texts498

B.The Persistent Refusal to Accept a ‘Right of Humanitarian Intervention’511

Ⅱ The Non-Existence of Decisive Precedents526

A.The Absence of Consecration of a Right of Humanitarian Intervention before 1990527

B.The Absence of Consecration of a Right of Humanitarian Intervention since 1990537

Conclusion550

Selected Reading555

Index559