Article 2(4) of the UN Charter Explained

Introduction

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes the general prohibition on the threat or use of force in international relations. Adopted in 1945, the provision completed a gradual legal shift away from an international order in which states had retained broad freedom to resort to war. It requires UN members to refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)).

The prohibition extends beyond formally declared war, but its scope is not unlimited. “Force” is ordinarily understood to mean armed force rather than every form of economic, political, or diplomatic coercion. Its application becomes less straightforward when military action is limited, conducted through armed groups, carried out by cyber means, or framed as a response to an emerging danger. Article 2(4) also prohibits threats of force, even where no attack ultimately occurs.

The provision forms part of a wider Charter system rather than an isolated ban. The Security Council may authorize enforcement action under Chapter VII, while Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Military operations conducted with the valid consent of the territorial state may fall outside the prohibition, provided that the consent was given by a competent authority and the operation remains within its terms. Claims extending beyond these grounds—including preventive self-defense, unilateral humanitarian intervention, and force against non-state actors in another state without consent—remain contested.

The prohibition also exists in customary international law. In the Nicaragua judgment, the International Court of Justice treated the customary rule against force as legally distinct from, although closely aligned with, Article 2(4). The Court also distinguished a prohibited use of force from the narrower category of an armed attack capable of triggering self-defense under Article 51 (ICJ, 1986, paras. 188–191).

Aggression raises a further distinction. An act of aggression concerns the use of armed force by one state against another in a manner prohibited by the Charter. The crime of aggression under the Rome Statute concerns individual responsibility and applies only where additional requirements are met, including a leadership position and an act that constitutes a manifest Charter violation by its character, gravity, and scale (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8 bis). A breach of Article 2(4) does not automatically establish that international crime.

Persistent violations have not removed the prohibition from international law. States that resort to military force generally invoke self-defense, territorial-state consent, or Security Council authority rather than claim an unrestricted right to attack another state. Such arguments may be legally weak, factually unsupported, or abusive, but their form confirms that the dispute usually concerns the application of the rule rather than its continued existence (Gordon, 1985; Kanade, 2009).

The legality of initiating force must also remain separate from the law governing the conduct of hostilities. International humanitarian law binds the parties once an armed conflict exists, regardless of which state acted unlawfully under the Charter. An unlawful resort to force does not make every subsequent military act a war crime, while compliance with humanitarian rules cannot legalize the decision to begin or expand hostilities.

1. The Legal Rejection of War

For much of the nineteenth century, international law did not contain a general prohibition on interstate war. States could violate particular treaties, territorial rights, or rules of neutrality, but the decision to resort to war was largely treated as an incident of sovereignty. Legal doctrine concentrated on the conditions created by war and the conduct of belligerents rather than on a universal rule invalidating the initial resort to armed force (Gordon, 1985, pp. 271–272).

The Hague Peace Conferences began to qualify that freedom. The 1899 and 1907 Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes encouraged recourse to good offices, mediation, commissions of inquiry, and arbitration before arms were used. The 1907 Convention on the Opening of Hostilities also required prior and explicit warning before hostilities began. These instruments strengthened peaceful settlement and regulated the transition to war, but they did not make war generally unlawful (Hague Convention I, 1899, arts 2–3; Hague Convention I, 1907; Hague Convention III, 1907, art. 1).

The League of Nations Covenant imposed broader restraints after the First World War. Members undertook to respect and preserve one another’s territorial integrity and political independence, while disputes falling within Articles 12 to 15 were to pass through arbitration, judicial settlement, or consideration by the League Council before war could lawfully begin. Article 11 declared any war or threat of war a concern of the League as a whole, and Article 16 provided for sanctions against members resorting to war in breach of the Covenant (League of Nations Covenant, 1919, arts 10–16).

These provisions restricted resort to war without abolishing it. The Covenant still left circumstances in which war was not expressly prohibited, and enforcement depended heavily on cooperation among member states. Its procedures and sanctions proved inadequate when major powers were unwilling to act collectively against aggression.

The Kellogg–Briand Pact went further in 1928. Its parties condemned recourse to war for resolving international controversies, renounced war as an instrument of national policy, and agreed to settle disputes only by peaceful means (Kellogg–Briand Pact, 1928, arts I–II). The Pact established an important substantive prohibition, but its reliance on the legal category of “war” left uncertainty surrounding undeclared hostilities and measures presented as something short of war. It also lacked a permanent institution capable of determining violations and organizing an effective collective response.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter completed the shift by prohibiting the “threat or use of force,” not only war. The change brought invasions, bombardments, armed interventions, limited attacks, and other military operations within the rule regardless of whether the acting state issued a declaration of war or accepted that a legal state of war existed. The Charter’s formulation addressed conduct rather than the formal label attached to it (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)).

1.1 From Regulation to Prohibition

Earlier international law often treated the existence of war as a formal legal status. Once that status arose, rules governing belligerency, neutrality, blockade, occupation, and the treatment of combatants became applicable. The law could regulate how hostilities began and how they were conducted without denying states a general power to initiate them.

That structure allowed force to be used under descriptions such as intervention, armed reprisal, pacific blockade, or measures short of war. A state might deny that its operation created a state of war while still employing military power against another state. Rules framed only around “war” could consequently be avoided through characterization.

The interwar instruments weakened this formalism but did not eliminate it. The League Covenant prohibited war only in defined circumstances, while the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not expressly regulate every threat or limited use of armed force. Article 2(4) closed much of that gap by making the threat or use of force itself the legal concern. The decisive question became what a state had done, not whether it called the operation a war.

1.2 Article 2(4) within the Charter System

Article 2(4) was not drafted as a freestanding declaration. Article 2(3) requires UN members to settle their international disputes by peaceful means so that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. The duty to pursue peaceful settlement complements the prohibition on using military force to impose a solution (United Nations, 1945, arts 2(3)–2(4)).

The Charter also transferred primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council under Article 24. Once the Council determines the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression under Article 39, it may adopt non-military measures under Article 41. Where such measures would be inadequate or have proved inadequate, Article 42 permits military enforcement action. A Chapter VII determination alone does not authorize force; the legal basis and terms of authorization must be found in the relevant Council decision (United Nations, 1945, arts 24 and 39–42).

Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Measures taken in self-defense must be reported to the Security Council and remain subject to the Council’s authority to take the action necessary to maintain or restore peace (United Nations, 1945, art. 51).

The Charter system thus combines three connected elements: a general prohibition on unilateral force, institutional authority for collective enforcement, and a limited right of self-defense. Political disagreement and the Security Council veto have frequently obstructed collective action, while the special agreements contemplated by Article 43 were never concluded. Those enforcement failures have altered how the system functions in practice, but they do not detach Article 2(4) from the institutional structure in which it was adopted.

2. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: Text and Scope

Article 2(4) provides:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The provision states one integrated obligation. It identifies the members formally bound, the international sphere in which the rule operates, the prohibited conduct, the interests expressly protected, and the connection between the prohibition and the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)). United Nations practice has treated these elements as recurring questions of interpretation rather than as separate and unrelated restrictions.

The prevailing interpretation is that Article 2(4) establishes a comprehensive prohibition on interstate armed force, subject to legal bases recognized within the Charter system. The references to territorial integrity and political independence do not authorize military action whenever an intervening state disclaims annexation or regime change. Nor does the final clause create a unilateral power to decide that force serves the purposes of the United Nations.

2.1 “All Members Shall Refrain”

The words “shall refrain” impose a binding treaty obligation. Political convenience, strategic advantage, or the failure of negotiations cannot by themselves release a member state from that duty.

“All Members” identifies those bound by Article 2(4) as a provision of the Charter. The protection extends, however, to “any State,” rather than only to UN members. The text does not permit force against a state merely because it is outside the Organization. Article 2(6) also reflects the Charter’s broader concern with conduct by non-member states where international peace and security are affected.

Article 2(4) directly regulates states, not non-state armed groups acting independently. Conduct by such groups may still engage the prohibition when it is attributable to a state or when another state sends, directs, or substantially supports armed operations against the target state. The legal position of independent non-state attacks arises principally under the law of self-defense, attribution, non-intervention, and state responsibility.

2.2 “In Their International Relations”

The phrase “in their international relations” places interstate and cross-border conduct at the center of Article 2(4). A government’s use of force against an internal rebellion does not, without an external element, constitute force against another state under this provision. Domestic operations may still be governed by international human rights law, international humanitarian law, or international criminal law.

Foreign military intervention changes the analysis. Cross-border attacks, the deployment of troops on another state’s territory, strikes conducted without territorial consent, and armed operations carried out through proxies may engage Article 2(4). The fact that military action occurs during a civil war or is performed by local forces does not necessarily make the conduct purely internal.

Valid consent from the territorial state may prevent foreign military action from violating Article 2(4) and territorial sovereignty. Consent must come from an authority capable of speaking for the state, must be freely given, and cannot justify conduct extending beyond its scope. Questions concerning disputed governments, occupation, civil conflict, and the withdrawal of consent require separate examination.

2.3 Territorial Integrity and Political Independence

Territorial integrity protects states against military interference with their territory, including invasion, occupation, annexation, bombardment, and unauthorized armed operations. Political independence protects their freedom from forcible external control over governmental or foreign affairs. A violation does not depend on the aggressor achieving its objective. An unsuccessful attack may breach Article 2(4) even when no territory is acquired and the target government remains in power.

The named interests are not limiting conditions that permit supposedly modest uses of force. A state cannot avoid the prohibition merely by promising that an operation will be temporary, that no territory will be annexed, or that the target government will not be removed. In the Corfu Channel case, the International Court of Justice rejected a claimed right of intervention and warned that such a doctrine would be reserved in practice for the most powerful states (ICJ, 1949, p. 35).

The final phrase—“or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”—reinforces the breadth of the rule. Reading it as a discretionary exception would allow each state to decide for itself that military action served peace, justice, or another Charter purpose. That interpretation would undermine the allocation of enforcement authority to the Security Council and restore much of the unilateral freedom that Article 2(4) was designed to remove (Gordon, 1985, pp. 275–276).

2.4 Treaty, Custom, and Peremptory Status

Article 2(4) is a treaty obligation, but the prohibition on interstate force also exists in customary international law. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice held that customary rules concerning the use of force continued to exist alongside the Charter. Their substantially similar content did not cause the treaty rule to absorb or extinguish the customary rule (ICJ, 1986, paras 175–179).

The distinction had practical significance in that case because the Court faced a jurisdictional reservation affecting claims based directly on multilateral treaties. It could still determine the dispute under customary international law. The Court later relied on state conduct and acceptance of the Friendly Relations Declaration when identifying the customary prohibition corresponding to Article 2(4) (ICJ, 1986, paras 188–190).

Customary status also means that the rule does not depend exclusively on a treaty relationship between the states concerned. It does not follow, however, that every disputed threshold, application, or asserted exception has acquired an equally settled customary character. The existence of the general rule and the precise content of its contested margins are separate questions.

Peremptory status requires similar precision. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a peremptory norm of general international law as one accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as permitting no derogation. The International Law Commission’s 2022 conclusions include the prohibition of aggression in a non-exhaustive annex listing norms that the Commission had previously referred to as peremptory (Vienna Convention, 1969, art. 53; ILC, 2022, conclusion 23 and annex).

The annex records the Commission’s prior conclusions; it is not a treaty provision or a judicial judgment creating peremptory status by itself. It is legally safer to describe the prohibition of aggression as a recognized jus cogens norm than to claim that every contested application of Article 2(4) has the same settled peremptory character. Article 2(4) covers threats, lesser uses of force, indirect operations, and disputed thresholds that may not be identical to aggression. Treaty obligation, customary law, and jus cogens are connected, but they remain distinct legal classifications.

3. The Meaning of “Force”

Article 2(4) principally concerns armed or military force. Invasion, bombardment, missile and drone strikes, military occupation, naval blockade, attacks on another state’s armed forces, and unauthorized military operations on foreign territory fall within its clearest applications. Many of these acts also appear in the General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression, although that instrument addresses aggression and does not define the full scope of every prohibited use of force (UNGA, 1974, arts 1 and 3).

The method used to carry out an operation is not decisive. Armed force may be delivered through soldiers, aircraft, warships, missiles, remotely operated weapons, armed groups, or digital systems. A short or geographically limited strike does not escape Article 2(4) simply because the acting state disclaims any intention to begin a war.

Harder cases arise at the lower end of the spectrum. International law has not established a precise threshold separating every use of force from accidental incursions, isolated unauthorized acts, and incidents of negligible consequence. The classification depends on the operation as a whole, including its target, scale, effects, military character, context, and attribution.

3.1 Armed Force and the Gravity Question

Article 2(4) is not confined to full-scale invasions or sustained hostilities. A single deliberate attack may constitute force even when it causes limited damage. The provision would lose much of its effect if states could conduct small punitive strikes or brief cross-border operations without legal justification merely because the violence did not reach the level of war.

The International Court of Justice has distinguished prohibited uses of force from the narrower category of armed attacks that trigger the right of self-defense under Article 51. In the Nicaragua judgment, the Court described armed attacks as the gravest forms of force and distinguished them from less grave conduct. An operation may consequently violate Article 2(4) without entitling the affected state to respond with force in self-defense (ICJ, 1986, paras 191 and 195).

That distinction does not establish whether Article 2(4) itself contains a de minimis threshold. One position treats any deliberate military force used by a state against another state as prohibited unless a valid legal basis exists. A more qualified approach accepts that trivial incidents lacking hostile character may not be classified as force, particularly where they result from navigational error, mechanical failure, misunderstanding, or the isolated actions of personnel acting without any operational purpose.

No numerical formula resolves the issue. Casualties and physical damage are relevant, but so are the weapon used, the nature of the target, the duration and repetition of the operation, the presence of hostile intent, and the broader relations between the states. An unsuccessful missile strike directed at a military installation may still be a use of force. A brief accidental crossing of a border by a patrol presents a different legal question even though it may breach territorial sovereignty.

The absence of an armed-attack threshold does not make minor force legally irrelevant. A state confronted with a lesser use of force may invoke state responsibility, demand cessation and reparation, seek Security Council action, or adopt lawful non-forcible measures. It cannot assume that every violation permits an armed response under Article 51.

3.2 Economic and Political Coercion

Economic pressure, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, hostile propaganda, and political coercion are not ordinarily classified as force under Article 2(4). The Charter distinguishes military enforcement from non-military measures, and the drafting history does not support treating every severe form of interstate pressure as armed force.

Exclusion from Article 2(4) does not make such conduct lawful. The Friendly Relations Declaration states that states may not use economic, political, or other measures to coerce another state into subordinating the exercise of its sovereign rights. This form of coercion is generally examined under the principle of non-intervention rather than the prohibition on armed force (UNGA, 1970).

The legality of economic sanctions depends on their source, purpose, and operation. Measures authorized by the Security Council under Article 41 form part of the Charter’s collective-security system. Unilateral restrictions may instead raise questions under treaty law, international economic law, human rights obligations, jurisdictional rules, or the law of countermeasures. Severe economic consequences do not, without more, transform sanctions into military force.

Political influence must also be separated from prohibited intervention. Criticism of another government, diplomatic pressure, and efforts to persuade foreign audiences do not ordinarily breach Article 2(4). Covert interference designed to compel changes in matters reserved to a state—such as its political system, elections, or foreign policy—may violate non-intervention even where no armed force is used.

3.3 Armed Groups, Proxies, and Indirect Force

A state may employ armed force through groups that are not formally part of its regular military. Article 3(g) of the Definition of Aggression includes the sending of armed bands, groups, irregulars, or mercenaries whose acts are sufficiently grave to amount to the acts listed in the definition, as well as substantial involvement in such conduct. The ICJ relied on this formulation when addressing when operations by armed groups may qualify as an armed attack (UNGA, 1974, art. 3(g); ICJ, 1986, para. 195).

The nature of the supporting state’s involvement is critical. Sending or directing an armed group to conduct grave attacks may amount to an armed attack by the state. Other forms of support can constitute a lesser use of force, unlawful intervention, or a different internationally wrongful act.

In Nicaragua, the Court stated that arming and training the contras could be characterized as involving the threat or use of force. It did not classify the provision of funds alone as force. The wider program of organizing, equipping, financing, supplying, and supporting the contras also breached the customary prohibition of intervention because it was directed toward coercing Nicaragua in matters within its sovereign choice (ICJ, 1986, paras 228 and 242).

Weapons, training, and operational assistance should not be treated as legally identical to intelligence sharing, financial support, political endorsement, or ordinary logistical aid. The amount and purpose of the assistance, its connection to particular operations, and the supporting state’s influence over the group all affect the classification. Assistance may be internationally wrongful even when it falls below the use-of-force or armed-attack threshold.

Attribution presents a separate question. Conduct by a state organ remains attributable to the state when the organ acts in an official capacity but exceeds its authority or disobeys instructions (ILC, 2001, art. 7). Acts of a separate armed group may be attributed where it acts on the state’s instructions or under its direction or control (ILC, 2001, art. 8). A state may still incur responsibility for its own assistance when the group’s conduct cannot itself be attributed to that state.

This separation prevents two opposite errors. Material support does not automatically make every operation of a proxy attributable to its sponsor. Equally, the absence of attribution does not excuse the sponsor’s own unlawful conduct in arming, directing, or assisting the group.

3.4 Cyber and Other Remote Operations

The UN Charter applies to state conduct involving information and communications technologies. States participating in the UN processes on responsible behavior in cyberspace have repeatedly affirmed that international law, including Article 2(4), governs the use of such technologies. They have also recognized that further agreement is needed on how particular rules apply to specific operations (UNGA, 2021a, paras 34–40; UNGA, 2021b, paras 69–73).

A cyber operation causing death, injury, physical destruction, or consequences comparable to a conventional military strike presents the strongest case for classification as force. Examples include manipulating industrial systems to cause an explosion, damaging military equipment, or interfering with critical infrastructure in a manner that produces destructive physical effects.

The analysis becomes less certain when the operation causes serious disruption without physical damage. A prolonged shutdown of an electrical grid, hospital network, financial system, or water supply may produce effects resembling those of conventional force. State positions differ on whether severe economic loss, loss of functionality, or other non-physical consequences can independently cross the threshold.

Several states assess cyber operations by comparing their scale and effects with conventional uses of force. That approach appears in the official compendium of national legal positions prepared through the UN Group of Governmental Experts, but it has not become a complete or universally accepted test for every case (UNGA, 2021c).

Context can alter the assessment. A cyber operation that disables air defenses as an integral part of a missile attack forms part of an operation that plainly uses armed force. Whether the digital component would independently qualify as force if conducted alone depends on its effects, military purpose, and surrounding circumstances.

Cyber espionage, data theft, website defacement, influence operations, and brief service disruption are not generally treated as uses of force. Depending on their character, they may engage sovereignty, non-intervention, diplomatic law, human rights obligations, or specialized treaty rules. Their exclusion from Article 2(4) does not place them outside international law.

The same reasoning applies to other remote methods. A drone strike, remotely triggered explosion, state-directed act of destructive sabotage, or targeted killing on another state’s territory may constitute force when attributable to a state and undertaken without consent, Security Council authorization, self-defense, or another valid legal basis. The physical location of the operator does not change the nature of the operation.

4. The Prohibition of Threats of Force

Article 2(4) prohibits threats of force independently of force that is ultimately carried out. International responsibility may arise when a state communicates that military action will follow unless another state accepts a demand, even if the threatened operation never occurs.

The connection between a threat and the contemplated action is central. In the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion, the ICJ explained that a declared readiness to use force is unlawful when the proposed use would itself violate the Charter. A threat cannot acquire legality merely because it is conditional or intended to secure compliance without actual violence (ICJ, 1996, para. 47).

An explicit ultimatum is the clearest example: surrender territory, alter policy, or face military attack. Threats may also be conveyed through troop concentrations, missile deployments, naval movements, mobilization, or military exercises when these actions are linked to demands or statements indicating that force will follow non-compliance.

Military activity alone is not enough. States routinely maintain armed forces, conduct exercises, move units, and issue defensive warnings. Article 2(4) is engaged when the conduct communicates a sufficiently identifiable intention to use force in circumstances where that force would be unlawful.

4.1 Identifying a Legal Threat

A threat requires a communicated readiness to employ armed force. The communication may be express or implied, public or confidential, and conveyed through words, conduct, or a combination of both. General hostility, inflammatory language, or political criticism does not necessarily amount to a threat under Article 2(4).

Capability helps determine whether the message is credible, but immediate capacity is not indispensable. A state may communicate a threat through forces not yet deployed, through an ally, or by announcing military preparations that will be completed later. Conversely, possession of substantial military capability does not by itself establish a threat.

Intention must be inferred from the full setting. Relevant factors include the language used, the nature and location of deployments, the timing of military preparations, prior conduct, diplomatic exchanges, and any conditions attached to the proposed action. An exercise that appears routine in isolation may form part of an unlawful threat when coordinated with an ultimatum.

The threatened use of force must also be sufficiently identifiable. Statements that merely reserve unspecified options may be too vague, although deliberate ambiguity can still communicate military coercion in context. No single phrase or formal declaration is required.

Legality ultimately turns on the contemplated force. A warning that necessary and proportionate defensive action will follow an armed attack differs from a threat to seize territory, punish a government, compel a political decision, or conduct an armed reprisal. The latter threats are unlawful because the proposed operations would themselves lack a valid legal basis.

4.2 Deterrence and Conditional Force

Deterrence relies on the prospect that certain conduct will provoke a military response. It may contain a threat in the ordinary meaning of the word, but Article 2(4) does not make every deterrent posture unlawful. The legal question is whether the force contemplated could lawfully be used if the stated conditions arose.

A warning linked to an actual armed attack may be consistent with Article 51, provided that the eventual response would satisfy necessity and proportionality. A policy threatening military action against conduct that does not permit self-defense remains unlawful even when presented as deterrence, prevention, or strategic stability.

Possession and deployment of weapons do not automatically amount to a prohibited threat. They may, however, contribute to such a finding when combined with an announced policy, operational preparations, or demands directed at another state. The distinction rests on the intention communicated and the circumstances in which force is said to be available.

Nuclear deterrence exposes the limits of the analysis. The ICJ linked the legality of a threatened nuclear use to the Charter rules on force and to the requirements of international humanitarian law. It did not recognize a general exception permitting nuclear force whenever a state invokes its survival. The Court stated only that it could not reach a definitive conclusion on legality or illegality in an extreme circumstance of self-defense in which the state’s survival would be at stake (ICJ, 1996, paras 47–48 and 105(2)(E)).

That unresolved conclusion cannot be converted into affirmative authorization. Any threatened use must still be assessed under Article 51, the requirements of necessity and proportionality, and the applicable rules of armed conflict.

Conditional language does not cure an unlawful threat. A demand backed by military force remains prohibited when the proposed attack would violate Article 2(4). The decisive question is not how the acting state labels its policy, but whether international law would permit the promised force under the circumstances it has identified.

5. Use of Force, Armed Attack, and Aggression

Use of force, armed attack, and aggression belong to the same legal field but serve different functions. Article 2(4) contains the general prohibition. Article 51 permits self-defense only after the higher threshold of an armed attack is met. Aggression describes serious unlawful force attributable to a state, while the Rome Statute’s crime of aggression concerns the responsibility of particular state leaders.

The distinction affects both remedies and responsibility. An incident may violate Article 2(4) without authorizing an armed response. Even an armed attack that triggers self-defense will not necessarily amount to aggression or satisfy the elements and jurisdictional conditions of an international crime.

5.1 The Article 2(4) Threshold

Use of force is the broadest category. A limited strike, brief incursion, or attack causing relatively little damage may breach Article 2(4) when no valid legal basis exists. Full-scale war, territorial conquest, and prolonged hostilities are not required.

The lower boundary of the prohibition is less settled. In the Nicaragua judgment, the International Court of Justice distinguished the gravest forms of force, which constitute armed attacks, from less grave forms and referred to the possibility of a “mere frontier incident” (ICJ, 1986, paras 191 and 195). The judgment did not create a precise minimum threshold for Article 2(4).

A deliberate attack directed by one state against another is difficult to exclude merely because it is small. Accidental border crossings, mistaken discharges, or isolated actions lacking any state military purpose raise different issues. Their classification depends on the target, weapon, damage, hostile character, surrounding circumstances, and the conduct of the state after the event.

An unlawful use of force below the armed-attack threshold still engages state responsibility. The injured state may demand cessation and reparation, seek Security Council action, or employ lawful non-forcible countermeasures. Article 50 of the Articles on State Responsibility excludes threats and uses of force from the measures available as countermeasures (ILC, 2001, art. 50(1)(a)).

5.2 The Armed-Attack Threshold

Article 51 preserves individual and collective self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.” The Court’s case law commonly assesses gravity through the scale and effects of the operation. Relevant facts include casualties, destruction, weapons, targets, duration, repetition, and the operation’s wider military significance.

Attacks by regular armed forces can plainly reach this threshold. Operations by irregular forces may also qualify. In Nicaragua, the Court accepted that sending armed bands whose conduct is comparable in scale and effects to an attack by regular forces may constitute an armed attack. Supplying weapons or logistical support, by contrast, may violate the prohibitions on force or intervention without crossing the Article 51 threshold (ICJ, 1986, para. 195).

Several smaller incidents may provide context for one another, but international law has not adopted a mechanical rule allowing unrelated events to be added together. Any cumulative assessment requires a credible connection between the incidents, including common authorship, operational purpose, timing, or direction. The ICJ has considered alleged series of attacks in its use-of-force cases without establishing a general “accumulation of events” doctrine applicable in every dispute.

Once an armed attack is established, the defensive response remains subject to necessity and proportionality. Article 51 opens the legal possibility of using force; it does not authorize punishment, territorial acquisition, or military action unrelated to ending or preventing the attack.

5.3 Aggression and the Crime of Aggression

Aggression initially concerns the conduct of a state. General Assembly Resolution 3314 defines aggression as the use of armed force by a state against another state’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence, or in another manner inconsistent with the Charter (UNGA, 1974, art. 1).

The resolution identifies invasion, occupation resulting from invasion, annexation by force, bombardment, blockade, attacks on another state’s armed forces, misuse of forces stationed by agreement, and the sending of sufficiently grave armed groups (UNGA, 1974, art. 3). The Security Council may consider other acts to constitute aggression, while the resolution also recognizes that gravity and surrounding circumstances remain relevant (UNGA, 1974, arts 2 and 4).

The Rome Statute’s crime of aggression is narrower. It covers the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression that, by its character, gravity, and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter. Liability is restricted to persons effectively able to control or direct the state’s political or military action (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 8 bis(1) and 25(3 bis)).

Character, gravity, and scale must collectively justify the finding of a manifest violation. No single component is sufficient by itself. The requirement excludes doubtful or relatively minor Charter violations from the criminal offense, even though they may still entail state responsibility (ICC Review Conference, 2010, Understanding 7).

The Court’s aggression jurisdiction is also more restricted than its jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Article 15 bis governs state referrals and investigations initiated by the Prosecutor. It excludes crimes committed by nationals of non-party states or on their territory and operates subject to the special ratification and opt-out rules adopted with the Kampala Amendments. Article 15 ter separately permits the Court to act following a Security Council referral, irrespective of whether the state concerned has accepted aggression jurisdiction (Rome Statute, 1998, arts 15 bis–15 ter; ICC Review Conference, 2010, Understanding 2).

Proof that a state committed aggression cannot establish criminal liability on its own. The prosecution must also prove the accused’s leadership position, personal conduct, knowledge of the relevant factual circumstances, and the Court’s jurisdiction over the alleged crime.

6. Recognized Legal Bases for Force

Military force may lawfully be used without the territorial state’s consent when the Security Council authorizes it or when the conditions of individual or collective self-defense are satisfied. Operations conducted with valid territorial consent are normally outside the prohibition because the state has accepted the foreign military presence or action.

Political descriptions cannot substitute for a legal basis. Calling an operation stabilizing, democratic, preventive, humanitarian, or necessary for regional security does not create an additional exception to Article 2(4).

6.1 Security Council Authorization

Article 39 empowers the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. It may impose non-military measures under Article 41 and authorize military enforcement under Article 42 when such measures would be inadequate or have proved inadequate (United Nations, 1945, arts 39–42).

The Council commonly delegates enforcement to states, coalitions, peace operations, or regional organizations. Resolutions authorizing “all necessary measures” or comparable action are generally understood to permit force, but the wording must be read within the resolution as a whole.

Purpose, geographic reach, protected persons, duration, reporting duties, and other conditions define the authorization. Authority to enforce a ceasefire or protect civilians cannot automatically be extended to occupation, regime change, territorial partition, or unrelated military objectives.

A finding under Article 39 is not itself permission to attack. Condemnation, sanctions, or expressions of grave concern likewise fall short of authorization unless the operative provisions permit military measures. Legal authority should not be inferred merely because the Council has addressed the situation but failed to prohibit a particular operation.

Regional enforcement action is governed by the same structure. Article 53 generally requires Security Council authorization for enforcement under regional arrangements. A regional organization may still participate in collective self-defense when Article 51’s separate conditions are met (United Nations, 1945, arts 51–53).

6.2 Individual and Collective Self-Defense

Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense following an armed attack. Customary international law adds the requirements of necessity and proportionality, which the ICJ has repeatedly applied (ICJ, 1986, para. 176; ICJ, 2003, paras 43 and 73–77).

Necessity requires a genuine defensive purpose. Force must be directed toward halting, repelling, or preventing the continuation of the attack, and no reasonably effective non-forcible alternative may be available in the circumstances.

Proportionality limits the defensive campaign to what is required for that purpose. It does not require identical weapons or equal casualties. The response may be physically greater than the original attack when that scale is needed for defense, but force aimed at punishment or unrelated strategic objectives is not proportionate in the legal sense.

A sufficient temporal connection must also remain. Delay may be justified by the need to identify the attacker, evaluate further danger, consult allies, or prepare an operation. Once the action no longer serves a defensive function, it becomes retaliation rather than self-defense.

Article 51 requires defensive measures to be reported immediately to the Security Council. Reporting neither creates nor proves the right. Failure to report may weaken the credibility of the legal claim, but the decisive questions remain the existence of an armed attack, necessity, proportionality, and defensive purpose.

Collective self-defense requires a request from the attacked state. In Nicaragua, the Court held that another state may not decide for itself that collective force should be used on the victim’s behalf. The state seeking assistance must regard itself as attacked and ask for military support (ICJ, 1986, paras 195 and 199).

Armed reprisals remain prohibited. A completed unlawful act may justify claims, sanctions, or lawful countermeasures, but it does not create a right to conduct punitive military operations.

6.3 Consent and Intervention by Invitation

Valid consent allows foreign forces to operate on a state’s territory without violating that state’s sovereignty or Article 2(4). Its legal effect depends on the authority granting it, the freedom with which it is given, and the limits placed on the operation.

Consent must come from an organ competent to represent the state in the matter concerned. It must be clear, voluntary, and given before or while the operation occurs. Consent obtained through coercion cannot supply a valid basis for force.

The invitation determines the permitted scope. Authorization to train local forces does not necessarily extend to combat. Permission directed at one armed group, region, or period cannot be used for unrelated operations. In Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, the ICJ examined Ugandan operations against the terms and later withdrawal of Congolese consent rather than treating earlier cooperation as permanent authority (ICJ, 2005, paras 42–54).

Consent may be withdrawn without special formalities when the state’s intention is clear. Foreign forces must then end the activities no longer covered and withdraw within the time reasonably required by the circumstances.

More difficult questions arise when governmental authority is disputed or civil war is underway. An established government is generally capable of requesting assistance, but extensive foreign combat support becomes controversial where rival authorities claim to represent the state or the intervention would effectively determine an internal political struggle. Recognition, effective control, constitutional legitimacy, independence from the intervening power, and self-determination may all bear on the analysis.

No categorical rule resolves every civil-war invitation. The safer approach is to test the competence and independence of the inviting authority, the object of the request, the conflict’s character, and whether another rule of international law limits the assistance. Occupation and foreign domination create particular doubt because the purported authority may lack the independence needed to express the state’s free consent.

An invitation also cannot authorize conduct beyond what international law permits. Consent does not validate genocide, territorial annexation, or other conduct prohibited by peremptory norms. Nor should silence, cooperation under pressure, or acceptance of humanitarian aid be treated automatically as permission for foreign combat operations.

7. Contested Claims of Lawfulness

Some states have sought to extend self-defense or to recognize additional grounds for force when Security Council authorization and territorial consent are absent. These claims differ in legal quality. Anticipatory self-defense develops an accepted Charter right at a disputed temporal boundary, while preventive war and unilateral humanitarian intervention would permit force in circumstances not expressly recognized by the Charter.

A proposed extension requires more than a persuasive political objective. Its legal status depends on the Charter, customary international law, judicial authority, and sufficiently general state practice accompanied by acceptance of a legal right. Limited or contested practice cannot establish a universal exception to Article 2(4).

7.1 Anticipatory and Preventive Self-Defense

Article 51 preserves self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.” Some states and scholars read that wording strictly. Others maintain that customary international law permits action against an attack that is imminent but has not yet begun, particularly where waiting would make effective defense impossible.

The Caroline correspondence remains the usual reference point. It required a necessity that was instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice of means or time for deliberation, and demanded that the defensive response remain within that necessity (Webster, 1842; Jennings, 1938, pp. 89–91). The incident predates the Charter, and the International Court of Justice has not expressly decided whether a distinct right of anticipatory self-defense survived Article 51.

For states accepting such a right, imminence cannot rest on hostility, military capacity, or suspicion alone. Operational preparations, orders, deployment patterns, the expected timing of an attack, and the absence of a viable non-forcible response may be relevant. The evidence must show a concrete danger close enough to make immediate defensive action necessary.

Preventive war addresses a different situation. Its object is to remove a threat that may become serious in the future, often because another state is developing weapons or acquiring strategic power. That reasoning gives the acting state broad discretion to decide when a possible adversary has become dangerous enough to attack.

International practice does not support an unrestricted right of preventive force. The Security Council unanimously condemned Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor as a clear violation of the Charter, despite Israel’s claim that the facility posed a future nuclear danger (UNSC, 1981, paras 1–2). Weapons development, hostile intentions, or a deteriorating security environment do not independently satisfy Article 51.

Anticipatory self-defense remains disputed at the narrow boundary of imminence. Preventive action against a distant, contingent, or speculative threat lacks a generally accepted legal basis.

7.2 Force Against Non-State Actors Abroad

Self-defense against non-state armed groups raises three separate questions: whether such a group can commit an armed attack, whether its conduct must be attributable to a state, and whether defensive force may be used inside another state when the attack is not attributable to that territorial state.

Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 recognized the inherent right of self-defense in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September 2001. They strengthened the view that a non-state organization can carry out an armed attack of sufficient gravity, but they did not establish a general test governing military action inside every non-consenting state where such a group is present (UNSC, 2001a; UNSC, 2001b).

Attribution provides the clearest route. When the armed group acts on a state’s instructions or under the required degree of direction or control, its attack may be legally connected to that state. Self-defense is then assessed within the ordinary interstate framework.

The harder case involves an independent group operating from a state that did not commit the attack. In the Wall advisory opinion, the ICJ found Article 51 inapplicable on the facts before it and emphasized the absence of an attack imputable to a foreign state (ICJ, 2004, para. 139). In Armed Activities, the Court concluded that Uganda had not established the conditions for self-defense, without fully resolving every question concerning major attacks by independent armed groups (ICJ, 2005, paras 146–147).

Several states have invoked an “unwilling or unable” rationale for operations against ISIL in Syria. Their position was that defensive force could be necessary when the territorial government could not or would not suppress the armed group responsible for continuing attacks (United States, 2014; United Kingdom, 2015; Australia, 2015).

The ICJ has not adopted that test, and no treaty or Security Council resolution formulates it as a general rule. Its customary status remains disputed. Any state relying on it would still need to establish an armed attack, identify the responsible group, explain why action in foreign territory was necessary, and confine the operation to the defensive objective. The territorial state’s sovereignty does not disappear merely because an armed group is present within its borders.

7.3 Humanitarian Intervention and R2P

The Security Council may authorize military action under Chapter VII to protect civilians or respond to mass atrocities. Operations of that kind derive their legality from Council authorization, not from a separate humanitarian exception.

Unilateral humanitarian intervention is more controversial. It claims a right to use force without territorial consent or Security Council authorization to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or comparable harm. Its supporters emphasize the moral cost of inaction when the Council is paralyzed. The legal objection is direct: the Charter contains no such exception, and state practice has not established one with general acceptance.

NATO’s 1999 intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia remains central to the dispute. The operation lacked Security Council authorization and Yugoslav consent. The Independent International Commission on Kosovo later characterized it as illegal but legitimate, expressly separating its assessment of political legitimacy from the applicable law (Independent International Commission on Kosovo, 2000, p. 4). The intervention did not produce an uncontested customary exception to Article 2(4).

The responsibility to protect does not confer a unilateral authority that Kosovo failed to establish. The 2005 World Summit Outcome affirmed that each state bears responsibility for protecting its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Where national authorities manifestly fail, collective action is to occur through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter and on a case-by-case basis (UNGA, 2005, paras 138–139).

R2P is a political and institutional framework covering prevention, international assistance, and collective response. It does not independently authorize states or regional organizations to use force without Security Council approval.

7.4 Protection of Nationals Abroad

A further disputed claim concerns limited military action to rescue nationals facing grave and immediate danger abroad. States have framed such operations as self-defense, as an autonomous right of rescue, or as action justified by necessity.

Consent from the territorial state provides the clearest legal basis. Without it, supporters of a rescue doctrine generally require an imminent danger to life, an inability or unwillingness of the territorial authorities to provide protection, no effective peaceful alternative, and an operation confined to evacuation or rescue.

Practice has not produced a universally accepted exception. Israel’s 1976 rescue operation at Entebbe is frequently cited in support, but reactions in the Security Council were divided. Wider interventions justified partly by the protection of nationals have met stronger opposition. The General Assembly condemned the United States interventions in Grenada and Panama, where protection claims were combined with broader military and political objectives (UNGA, 1983; UNGA, 1989).

The disputed doctrine cannot support occupation, regime change, punishment, or operations extending beyond the immediate protective purpose. An attack on private nationals abroad also does not automatically constitute an armed attack against their state under Article 51. The legal basis must be established from the facts rather than inferred from the nationality of those endangered.

8. Article 2(4) and the Law of Armed Conflict

Article 2(4) governs the legality of resorting to interstate force. International humanitarian law governs conduct once an armed conflict exists. These bodies of law address different decisions and apply independently.

IHL does not distinguish between parties according to the justice of their cause. Its application depends on the existence and classification of the armed conflict, the treaty obligations binding the parties, customary law, and the status of the persons, territory, and objects concerned. The unlawfulness of an invasion does not deprive the aggressor state’s civilians or combatants of humanitarian protection (Additional Protocol I, 1977, preamble).

The defending state remains bound by the rules applicable to its operations. A lawful claim of self-defense cannot excuse attacks on civilians, disproportionate attacks, prohibited weapons, torture, or unlawful treatment of detainees. The aggressor is subject to the same principle of independent humanitarian regulation, although the precise rules may differ according to whether the conflict is international or non-international, whether occupation exists, and which treaties bind each party.

8.1 Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello

Jus ad bellum, more accurately described under the Charter as jus contra bellum, asks whether force could lawfully be initiated or continued. Jus in bello asks whether particular conduct during the conflict complies with international humanitarian law.

An unlawful war does not make every military operation a war crime. Not every breach of IHL is criminal either. War-crime liability generally requires a serious violation recognized as giving rise to individual criminal responsibility, a sufficient nexus with an armed conflict, and the material and mental elements of the relevant offense (Prosecutor v Tadić, 1995, para. 94; Rome Statute, 1998, arts 8 and 30).

Compliance with humanitarian law has no retroactive effect on Article 2(4). An attack may satisfy distinction, proportionality, and precautions while remaining part of an unlawful resort to force. Conversely, a state acting lawfully in self-defense may commit war crimes through the manner in which its forces conduct hostilities.

Maintaining the separation prevents responsibility for aggression from replacing the detailed legal assessment of battlefield conduct. It also ensures that humanitarian protection remains available to persons affected by war regardless of which party bears responsibility for starting it.

9. Consequences of an Unlawful Use of Force

A breach of Article 2(4) may engage several legal regimes at once. The responsible state may incur obligations under the law of state responsibility, face measures adopted by the Security Council, lose any claim to territory acquired through force, or find that an agreement procured by military coercion is void. Individual criminal responsibility may also arise in cases satisfying the Rome Statute’s definition and jurisdictional requirements for the crime of aggression.

These consequences remain legally distinct. State responsibility concerns obligations owed by the state. Security Council measures derive from the Charter’s collective-security system. Non-recognition prevents unlawful territorial change from acquiring legal validity. Treaty invalidity protects state consent from coercion. Criminal responsibility depends on the conduct and position of a particular individual.

9.1 State Responsibility and Institutional Response

An attributable violation of Article 2(4) is an internationally wrongful act. The responsible state must cease any continuing breach and, where circumstances require, provide appropriate assurances or guarantees against repetition. It must also make full reparation for the injury caused through restitution, compensation, satisfaction, or a combination of these forms (ILC, 2001, arts 30–31 and 34).

Restitution may require withdrawal from unlawfully occupied territory or reversal of other consequences where restoration is materially possible and not grossly disproportionate. Compensation addresses financially assessable harm not repaired through restitution. Satisfaction may respond to non-material injury through acknowledgment of the breach, an apology, or another appropriate measure.

The directly affected state may invoke responsibility as an injured state under Article 42. Where an obligation is owed to a group of states and the breach specially affects one member of that group, that state may also qualify as injured under Article 42(b)(i). Article 48 provides a separate route for states that are not individually injured to invoke responsibility when the obligation is owed to the international community as a whole or protects a collective interest of a group of states (ILC, 2001, arts 42 and 48).

Countermeasures cannot include military force. They must be directed toward inducing compliance, remain proportionate, and respect the obligation to refrain from threats or uses of force. An armed reprisal cannot be relabeled as a countermeasure merely because it follows an earlier wrongful act (ILC, 2001, arts 49–51).

The Security Council may act independently under Chapter VII. It may demand a ceasefire or withdrawal, impose non-military sanctions, create monitoring or peace operations, or authorize enforcement measures after making the determinations required by Article 39. Council action may end or contain a conflict without resolving reparation, territorial title, or individual accountability (United Nations, 1945, arts 39–42).

9.2 Territorial Acquisition and Non-Recognition

Territory cannot be lawfully acquired through the threat or use of force. The Friendly Relations Declaration states that no territorial acquisition obtained through force shall be recognized as legal, preserving the Charter rule against conquest and forcible annexation (UNGA, 1970).

Effective control does not transfer sovereignty. An occupying power may exercise authority over territory and incur obligations under the law of occupation, but military possession, domestic annexation legislation, administrative integration, or the passage of time cannot by themselves create lawful title.

Other states must avoid conduct that treats an unlawful territorial change as valid. Non-recognition does not necessarily prohibit every practical contact with authorities or persons in the territory, particularly where engagement is needed to protect the population. It does prohibit acts that affirm the aggressor’s sovereignty or help consolidate the unlawful situation.

Where aggression constitutes a serious breach of a peremptory norm, additional duties arise. States must cooperate through lawful means to bring the breach to an end, must not recognize the resulting situation as lawful, and must not provide aid or assistance that maintains it (ILC, 2001, arts 40–41).

9.3 Treaties Procured by Force

Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a treaty is void when its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles embodied in the UN Charter. The provision concerns coercion directed against the state as a legal entity (Vienna Convention, 1969, art. 52).

The relevant question is whether unlawful force procured the state’s consent. A treaty does not become void merely because it was concluded after hostilities, military defeat, or severe political pressure. The required connection between the unlawful force and the conclusion of the agreement must be established.

Article 51 addresses coercion directed against an individual state representative. Consent expressed by a representative has no legal effect where it was procured through acts or threats against that person, such as detention, violence, or threats against close family members (Vienna Convention, 1969, art. 51).

Article 53 applies where the treaty itself conflicts, at the time of its conclusion, with a peremptory norm of general international law. Such a treaty is void, regardless of whether its conclusion was procured through coercion. In cases governed by Articles 51, 52, or 53, Article 44(5) excludes separation of individual provisions as a means of preserving the remainder of the treaty (Vienna Convention, 1969, arts 44(5) and 53).

Also read

• Self-Defense in International Law

• Principle of Territorial Integrity in International Law

• The Principle of Proportionality in International Law

• State Responsibility in International Law

• The Evolution of Self-Defence Against Non-State Actors in International Law

• International Humanitarian Law Explained

• USA-Iran War and the Use of Force under International Law

• The Legality of a Houthi Bab el-Mandeb Blockade under International Law

Conclusion

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter remains the general prohibition on interstate threats and uses of armed force. Persistent violations have not restored the pre-Charter freedom to wage war. States employing military force ordinarily invoke self-defense, consent, or Security Council authority rather than assert an unrestricted right to attack, even where the claimed justification is legally weak or factually disputed (Gordon, 1985, pp. 272–276; Kanade, 2009).

Most disputes concern the rule’s application: whether particular conduct constitutes force, whether it reaches the armed-attack threshold, whether the acts of an armed group can be legally connected to a state, and whether an asserted justification satisfies the relevant conditions. These questions do not erase the distinction between a prohibited use of force, an armed attack, state aggression, and the individual crime of aggression.

The Charter framework also preserves the separation between the legality of resorting to force and the law governing hostilities. Article 2(4) restricts when military force may begin or continue; international humanitarian law governs how an armed conflict is conducted. Where force lacks a valid legal basis, the consequences may include state responsibility, collective-security measures, non-recognition of territorial gains, treaty invalidity, and, in the gravest cases, individual criminal responsibility.

References

Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3.

Australia, Permanent Mission to the United Nations (2015) Letter dated 9 September 2015 from the Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2015/693, 9 September.

Corten, O. (2016) ‘The “Unwilling or Unable” Test: Has it Been, and Could it be, Accepted?’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 29(3), pp. 777–799.

Covenant of the League of Nations (1919) adopted 28 June 1919, entered into force 10 January 1920, 108 LNTS 188; 225 CTS 195.

Deeks, A.S. (2012) ‘“Unwilling or Unable”: Toward a Normative Framework for Extraterritorial Self-Defense’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 52(3), pp. 483–550.

Gordon, E. (1985) ‘Article 2(4) in Historical Context’, Yale Journal of International Law, 10(2), pp. 271–278 [online]. Available at: https://openyls.law.yale.edu/entities/publication/aa21c77a-4d9c-4550-a6c1-1c0bc906629e (Accessed: 02 July 2026).

Gray, C. (2018) International Law and the Use of Force. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hague Convention (I) for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (1899) adopted 29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900, 32 Stat. 1779; Treaty Series No. 392.

Hague Convention (I) for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (1907) adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910, 36 Stat. 2199; Treaty Series No. 536.

Hague Convention (III) Relative to the Opening of Hostilities (1907) adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910, 36 Stat. 2259; Treaty Series No. 538.

Independent International Commission on Kosovo (2000) The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

International Court of Justice (1949) Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), merits, judgment, 9 April, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), merits, judgment, 27 June, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, 8 July, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.

International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), judgment, 6 November, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161.

International Court of Justice (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, advisory opinion, 9 July, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136.

International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), judgment, 19 December, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1995) Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72.

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, Report of the International Law Commission, fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.

International Law Commission (2022) Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), with Commentaries, Report of the International Law Commission, seventy-third session, UN Doc. A/77/10, ch. IV.

Jennings, R.Y. (1938) ‘The Caroline and McLeod Cases’, American Journal of International Law, 32(1), pp. 82–99.

Kanade, M. (2009) ‘Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: Alive and Well’, Peace and Conflict Monitor, 7 July [online; republished by Ideas for Peace, 24 June 2020]. Available at: https://ideasforpeace.org/content/article-24-of-the-un-charter-alive-and-well/ (Accessed: 20 July 2026).

Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928) General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, signed 27 August 1928, entered into force 25 July 1929, 94 LNTS 57.

Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2010) The Crime of Aggression, Resolution RC/Res.6, adopted 11 June.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3.

United Kingdom, Permanent Mission to the United Nations (2015) Letter dated 7 September 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2015/688, 8 September.

United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.

United Nations General Assembly (1970) Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, A/RES/2625 (XXV), 24 October.

United Nations General Assembly (1974) Definition of Aggression, A/RES/3314 (XXIX), 14 December.

United Nations General Assembly (1983) The Situation in Grenada, A/RES/38/7, 2 November.

United Nations General Assembly (1989) Effects of the Military Intervention by the United States of America in Panama on the Situation in Central America, A/RES/44/240, 29 December.

United Nations General Assembly (2005) 2005 World Summit Outcome, A/RES/60/1, 24 October.

United Nations General Assembly (2021a) Open-ended Working Group on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security: Final Substantive Report, A/75/816, 18 March.

United Nations General Assembly (2021b) Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security, A/76/135, 14 July.

United Nations General Assembly (2021c) Official Compendium of Voluntary National Contributions on the Subject of How International Law Applies to the Use of Information and Communications Technologies by States Submitted by Participating Governmental Experts in the Group of Governmental Experts on Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace in the Context of International Security Established Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 73/266, A/76/136, 13 July.

United Nations Security Council (1981) Resolution 487 (1981), S/RES/487 (1981), 19 June.

United Nations Security Council (2001a) Resolution 1368 (2001), S/RES/1368 (2001), 12 September.

United Nations Security Council (2001b) Resolution 1373 (2001), S/RES/1373 (2001), 28 September.

United States, Permanent Mission to the United Nations (2014) Letter dated 23 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, S/2014/695, 23 September.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331.

Webster, D. and Ashburton, A.B. (1842) Correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton on McLeod’s Case, the Creole Case and the Subject of Impressment [online]. [Washington]. Available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/09022080/ (Accessed: 26 July 2026).