A. Prior International Delinquency
As previously noted, the Naulilaa case establishes standards concerning the use of reprisals. The first criterion is the requirement that the offending state must have committed a prior international delinquency against the claimant state. This "delinquency" may but need not be of a violent nature. Having suffered an injury, the claimant state is entitled under customary international law to employ otherwise illegal acts designed to: (1) Enforce obedience to international law by discouraging further illegal conduct; (2) compel a change in policy by the delinquent state; or (3) force a settlement of a dispute with the delinquent state whose actions breached international law.
B. Preceded by an Unsatisfied Demand
Before a claimant state may undertake an act of reprisal, it must seek a peaceable resolution of the dispute, traditionally by petitioning the offending state for redress of injuries suffered. If the offending state refuses or fails to provide the requested redress, the claimant state is considered entitled to commence an act of reprisal; however, no attempt to obtain peaceful redress is required if it appears "inappropriate or impossible in the circumstances."
C. …show more content…
Target Consideration must also be given to the nature of the target. While an airstrike against a single terrorist may be considered excessive, it may be considered a proportionate use of force against the state that set that terrorist in motion. Practical difficulties exist in establishing a connection between a terrorist attack and the state sponsoring that attack. The more convincing is the evidence; there is a less likelihood that the reprisal will receive a Security Council condemnation. States must consider the reaction the reprisal will evoke in the world community as well as the response at home among the people and their representatives in government. A negative response at home may send the wrong message to U.S. allies and adversaries
As previously noted, the Naulilaa case establishes standards concerning the use of reprisals. The first criterion is the requirement that the offending state must have committed a prior international delinquency against the claimant state. This "delinquency" may but need not be of a violent nature. Having suffered an injury, the claimant state is entitled under customary international law to employ otherwise illegal acts designed to: (1) Enforce obedience to international law by discouraging further illegal conduct; (2) compel a change in policy by the delinquent state; or (3) force a settlement of a dispute with the delinquent state whose actions breached international law.
B. Preceded by an Unsatisfied Demand
Before a claimant state may undertake an act of reprisal, it must seek a peaceable resolution of the dispute, traditionally by petitioning the offending state for redress of injuries suffered. If the offending state refuses or fails to provide the requested redress, the claimant state is considered entitled to commence an act of reprisal; however, no attempt to obtain peaceful redress is required if it appears "inappropriate or impossible in the circumstances."
C. …show more content…
Target Consideration must also be given to the nature of the target. While an airstrike against a single terrorist may be considered excessive, it may be considered a proportionate use of force against the state that set that terrorist in motion. Practical difficulties exist in establishing a connection between a terrorist attack and the state sponsoring that attack. The more convincing is the evidence; there is a less likelihood that the reprisal will receive a Security Council condemnation. States must consider the reaction the reprisal will evoke in the world community as well as the response at home among the people and their representatives in government. A negative response at home may send the wrong message to U.S. allies and adversaries