JMO Lecture | Michael Schmitt: International Law and the Use of Force (The Jus ad Bellum)

*****
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the speaker's own and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Naval War College, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or any other branch or agency of the U.S. Government.

[@lisalasoya2898]

Good day, when I listen to your lecture about Article 2(4) rule I concur on the rules of engagement-you mention humanitarian intervention and that zero's it down to the peace, all men are created equal there should not be any kind of physical or domination, that in itself is human intervention. Thank You-Lisa

[@minenhlembambo546]

a very good lecture like it was presented by Chris Gevers in University of Kwazulu Natal, Durban, South Africa.

[@michiel1403]

A very good lecture, I must say. However, I do have trouble following Professor Schmitt in his reasoning with regard to the legality of the use of force against Iraq in 2003. It may well be that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under Resolution 687 which indeed in its paragraph 1 established a cease-fire, but, firstly, it would be up to the Security Council alone to affirm whether or not this was the case. Secondly, and more important for the point I try to make, Resolution 678 does nothing else than authorizing use of 'all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660' which, on its turn, refers only to the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing else. You cannot claim Security Council authorization to invade and occupy Iraq, remove Hussein from power and install a new government from the wording of resolution 660. In my view, this is legally speaking completely wrong, though I do invite anyone to correct me on this.

[@garybrown6866]

What SC1441 actually says is: "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area" Both SC660, SC678 (and all the other resolutions that are set out in SC678 and SC1441) use the key phrase "to restore international peace and security in the area" as the key international objective. SC1441 says quite explicitly that Iraq was breaching SC660 **and all relevant subsequent resolutions**, not by "re-invading Kuwait" but by consistently, over many years, breaching the post-expulsion ceasefire that had - sort of - achieved the prime SC660 objective of "international peace and security in the area". When you say that SC660 "refers only to the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and nothing else", you surely need to account for the statement in SC660 that the Council had determined: "that there exists a breach of international peace and security" occasioned by Iraq's actions in Kuwait. And you surely need to address that explicit SC1441 reference to the force of all the post SC660 resolutions, which constantly refer to Iraq's continued threat to "international peace and security". The legal basis of the US action in the second Gulf War was the ongoing "breach of international peace and security" that SC1441 laid at the Iraqi door, and that SC660, SC678 etc. had attempted - not wholly successfully - to correct "by all necessary means".

[@Jezmac1969]

So basically the law is whatever those in power say it is to suit their agenda

[@martavibo2145]

international law is a very subjective source, since it cannot hold any specifics or be too precise.

[@MrAlf30]

I think this lecture in regard to international ( jus ad balum the use of force)is presented by American view .Most his arguments is base on interpretation of the norm of the law in justifying the actions of the us army.However , many experts in international law would argue otherwise (Swiss French....).have international law degree and interpret the article 51 in its legality.....

[@rohanbansal9236]

+Alpha Diallo I think article 51 in it's legality has a certain extent to which it needs to be applied especially regarding the preemptive use of force for the reason of self defense has spiraled out of control, and America uses this very clause in the charter to circumnavigate repercussions for its use of force by claiming that it was out of self defense and that they were under immediate threat from certain entities that it has invaded, and has used force against. Such as in Iraq.

[@jessie6458]

Alpha Diallo no wonder why America has invaded so many countries in the world

[@resadsuleymanzade5836]

thanks for information.

[@annauciatawekesa1454]

It was really helpful.

[@dohnlabalaba9470]

Awesome

[@TheKharyn]

Good lecture, I should say. But he presented from the lens of US foreign policy... In my opinion!

[@gtaylorsimms]

At what point is an unseated government no longer considered in control and able to legitimately request outside assistance?

[@pranhakim4831]

In the contemporary international law, what are the legal conditions and justifications when a state wants to use force against another state?

[@jackhowatson4359]

All states are banned from using force in their international relations unless 1. Self Defence under Art 51 2. R2P (UNSCR) 3. collective self-defence requiring consent of the host state.

[@automan1591]

I would refer you to the UN Charter. Hope that helps!

[@jayeshkate3657]

Nice

[@StarzzBrown]

@35:11 Liberia and Sierra Leone are in West Africa not East Africa hence the name ECOWAS smh

[@leonelako9382]

It's obviously a mistake smh

[@swethakrishnan4171]

what does reasonable belief actually entail when it comes to using self-defence? Every state is going to be like i had reasonable belief to strike the other state even if its clearly not the case when it comes to the other state. So how actually can reasonable belief be explained?

[@armandarceneaux1022]

Article 51 (the right to self-defense) gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent, as a TEMPORARY MEASURE UNTIL THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL CAN TAKE STEPS NECESSARY FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. But the law (and its application) is open to interpretation, regarding whether or not Article 51 wholly applies to the 911 attacks on US soil by non-state actors and the US’s response within the sovereign nation of Afghanistan (which provided no material support). One might imagine that only the most liberal view of Article 51 justifies a decade-long, full-scale military operation within a sovereign country in response to three domestic terrorist attacks by non-state actors.

[@swethakrishnan4171]

if its liberal interpretation that is used then isn't it actually biased?

[@armandarceneaux1022]

I don't know, but I'd say, 'yep.' It seems like an interpretation of the law in favor of a ruling to increase the latitude of a foreign, occupying force within a sovereign nation, which thereby decreases the autonomy of the sovereign nation, is both liberal and biased. I say 'liberal' because from the US's perspective, they desired more freedom to choose their own course of action in response to the 911 terrorist attacks. As far as being biased, well, usually both sides of an argument--affirmative or negative, conservative or liberal--are biased. Each side wants to win. As such, each side presents evidence crafted to present itself in the best light and the other in the worst. All we can hope for is a functional and UNBIASED AUTHORITY (like the UN--in theory) to IMPARTIALLY WEIGH the evidence and make a REASONABLE RULING based on an OBEJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. But what do I know? I'm a musician.

[@swethakrishnan4171]

+Armand Arceneaux fair enough

[@swethakrishnan4171]

how is conquering afganisthan a valid point? clearly when your attacking a non-state actor how does infringing the sovereignity of a country come under it? When you say proportionate doesn't it actually mean that you only had to destroy the non state actor and not the whole country and deprive them of their freedom simply for being in a country where those non state actors had taken refuge or had been living? I know that its not the case anymore but im only asking the reason behind the professor supporting actions of US.

[@armandarceneaux1022]

"... reason behind the professor supporting actions of US." This may have something to do with tenure. You know, towing the NWC line.

[@swethakrishnan4171]

elaborate please...i still dont get it.

[@armandarceneaux1022]

Sorry. My above response was a poorly phrased joke. Anyhow, regardless of whether or not I agree with professor Schmitt, he's fairly clear regarding the questions you asked in the following portion of the lecture: 37:10 - 45:52.

[@balqeesmgadami7679]

He’s too American . Conquering a country is never proportionate . Afghanistan is not taliban and it’s surly not Qaeda

[@takundamusara6334]

good lecture but biased ....

[@DanielM1224]

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[@netabaughman3079]

Did you REALLY not know that you needed to be asked first? 58 minutes in here, it makes me sick to my stomach.

[@zakhavines786]

World never came for Kashmir for India autrocities

[@waqaslatif3356]

Worlds needs to know that how india gain access in Ioj&k.

[@adityajoshi1586]

That's because Kashmir would not be an international law matter. As of now Kashmir is India's internal matter and Azad Kashmir is Pakistan's internal matter. Pak army also committed atrocities in East Pakistan and Balochistan but those are not covered under international law.

[@peadro36]

he sounds biased on the 9/11 issues like all americans

[@nserekomuhammed4090]

But you should not also forget that this lecturer was with in America in the university of America and majority of students are probably Americans do you expect him of using other examples apart from America ?

[@idk_bud]

Legal justify anything...like war or use of force. This guy is ridiculously uneducated.