Pros And Cons Of Section 51

Since 1945, the United Nations Charter has been a topic of debate in regards to the stipulations concerning the international use of force. Article 51 outlines the rights of a nation to use military force for self - defence. However, Member States of the United Nations have attempted to read into Article 51 stating that it seems to violate customary law with regard to self/collective defense understood on the Caroline test - that pre-emption is not in and of itself a violation of the law of force. It is argued that the Caroline Test is a misreading of what Section 51 allows, for the Charter only permits self – defense after the occurrence of an armed attack. Two schools of thought have developed on this issue. On one hand there is a restrictionist view of the Charter. The supporters of …show more content…
Article 51 of the Charter provides States with the right to protect themselves on the off chance they endure an "armed attack." The wording of the charter asserts that the attack must have occurred prior to any action of self – defence. It is emphasized that once the U.N. Security Council grants approval member states are allowed to protect themselves in conjunction with Chapter VII.2 Given that Article 51 outlines the actions a state should take when attacked, "if an armed attack occurs," implies that neither pre-emptive nor anticipatory self - defence are permissible given that these notions discuss that action can be taken prior to the occurrence of an armed attack.3 Moreover, the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua Case clearly stated that the right of self-defence under Article 51 only occurs in the event of an armed attack.4 Given that there has been a clear statement on this concept, it should be established that the Caroline test must not be read into Article 51 of the