Section 51 Argumentative Analysis

The other interpretation involves the idea that Section 51 does not explicitly limit the actions of states to act in self-defense when an armed attack occurs but there is actually a more expansive understanding of this approach that aids in dealing with the complex international relations of our current standing. In the landmark case of Nicaragua v. United States, Stephen Schwebel states that Article 51 does not say “if, and only if, an armed attack occurs” meaning that the application of self-defense is not explicitly restricted to armed attacks (Arend, 93. 2003). The counter-restrictive scholars who believe in this interpretation of Section 51 lead the controversial argument in which a greater number of states are using in their interpretation of section 51. Under this framework an armed attack would be a particular situation in which a state could engage in action on the basis of self-defense with a non-exhaustive …show more content…
From this perspective, what would constitute a threat? Would it simply be possession of WMD? Who and how would hostile or malicious intent be determined? Opening the use of force and self-defense up to greater interpretations could also prove problematic for our current international system because it would afford states greater opportunity to use force against other states for reasons it feels are preemptive and justified. For example, in 1981 Israel stuck the Osirak reactor before its completion as a preemptive measure because of the development of a nuclear weapons program, the UN Security Council however rejected this stance (Arend, 2003). The challenge then becomes providing states the ability to protect its citizens from attacks in a preemptory measure without allowing states the ability to attack in an illegal, illegitimate and unjust manner within the international