magnify
Home Archive for category "Use of Force"

Mistake of Fact in Putative Self-Defence Against Cyber Attacks

Published on January 17, 2020        Author: 

I am glad that Marko has taken on the task of tackling the issue of mistakes of fact in international law, as I completely agree that it is a very important yet so far largely overlooked aspect, surprisingly so. While I’d mostly approve of Marko’s deliberations and conclusions, I wanted to add a brief point that I came across while doing research for my soon-to-be-published book on remedies in cyberspace that might be suitable to further inform this important debate. Given the technical features of cyber infrastructures, the issue of mistakes of fact in relation to measures taken in self-defence is even more critical in this context.

This is because a state might of course not only factually err in regard to the existence of an armed attack pursuant to Article 51 UN Charter, but just as well in relation to its author. This issue has come up more recently in connection with armed attacks in or through cyberspace and the widely discussed attribution problem. An imminent crisis caused by a cybersecurity incident as the result of a malicious cyber operation that indeed leaves “no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation” is easily imaginable. At the same time, given the persistent difficulty to identify an operation’s source and agent with reasonable certainty reasonably fast, it is equally easily imaginable that mistakes will happen – leading to a forceful response in putative self-defence against the wrong target (for instance a critical server in an uninvolved third country that had been employed in order to carry out the malicious operation). What should be the legal consequences of such a mistake of fact?

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Mistakes of Fact When Using Lethal Force in International Law: Part III

Published on January 15, 2020        Author: 

 

To briefly recapitulate our examination of mistake of fact when using lethal force in various sub-fields of international law: such a doctrine is, in its purely subjective form, black letter law in international criminal law. It is also established (even if not labelled as such) in international human rights law and (somewhat less clearly) in international humanitarian law. Both IHL and IHRL would however require the mistake to both honest and reasonable to be able to preclude liability. Both IHL and IHRL contain explicit precautionary and prophylactic rules whose role, in part, is to determine the bounds of reasonable and hence permissible error (e.g. with respect to target verification).

As we have seen, the mistake of fact question is most fraught in the jus ad bellum. That said, as a formal matter, even if one thought it to be desirable, it would be difficult to argue that a jus ad bellum-specific mistake of fact doctrine was customary law. I cannot think of any state but the US that has invoked such a doctrine, even implicitly. (Any such examples known to readers would be most welcome.) And when the doctrine was invoked, as with the Iran Air Flight 655, it certainly did not attract widespread acceptance by other states. There is enough ambiguity in state reactions to the downing of that aircraft, especially in the atmosphere of the Cold War, that one cannot categorically exclude that such a rule could exist. But it seems unlikely that it does. And if it does, it cannot be the purely subjective one from ICL, which would be even more inappropriate in the jus ad bellum context than in IHL and IHRL.

Bearing all this in mind, let us turn to the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 over Tehran, which is as we have seen eerily reminiscent of the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. There are many parallels between the two incidents, not least that they both involve the same two states, if on different sides of the story, and that both cases raise questions of mistake of fact. What is very different is the wider context – the Cold War warped anything it touched. And I think it fair to say that the socializing effect of international law is somewhat greater today than it was then.

Thus, states like Ukraine and Canada have already used legal language vis-à-vis Iran. President Zelenskyy stated that:

Iran has pleaded guilty to crashing the Ukrainian plane. But we insist on a full admission of guilt. We expect from Iran assurances of their readiness for a full and open investigation, bringing those responsible to justice, the return of the bodies of the dead, the payment of compensation, official apologies through diplomatic channels.

Prime Minister Trudeau similarly stated that ‘Iran must take full responsibility’ for its actions.

And this is exactly what Iran should do. It shouldn’t just listen to these other states invoking its responsibility. It should listen to the voice of its own ambassador, when he was speaking in the Security Council chamber to reject the US self-defence justification for shooting down IR 655:

We believe that a responsible Government, under the present circumstances when it has caused the destruction of a civilian airliner and its 290 passengers, must urgently take three steps: It must apologize to the families of the victims and to the peoples and the Governments concerned ; it must accept full responsibility for the downing of the airliner and offer reparation on the basis of its legal and moral liability; and it must reassess and revise policies which led to the downing of the plane and the murder of its innocent passengers. (S/PV.2821, 6)

An equally intriguing parallel is that with McCann. Indeed, I would argue that it is precisely human rights law – largely absent from the discussions of the destruction of IR 655, aside from a single reference by (of all people) the ambassador of Syria – that is the body of law that best fits the downing of the Ukrainian airliner. The gravest violation of international law here is not that of the Chicago Convention, but that of the human right to life, the wrongfulness of which could, unlike with the Chicago Convention, never be precluded by jus ad bellum self-defence.

Just like the SAS soldiers in McCann, the Iranian air defence officers most likely honestly believed that they had to act to deflect a threat to human life. Just like in McCann, they were wrongly told that such a threat was certain – that US cruise missiles would be incoming. Just like in McCann, they had little time to deliberate. And just like in McCann, the violation of the right to life stems not directly from the soldiers’ decision to use lethal force, but from systemic background failures of higher Iranian authorities.

Had Iran closed its airspace for civilian traffic that evening, knowing full well that hostilities with the US might easily escalate, the plane would never have been shot down. Had Iran properly coordinated its air defences with civilian air traffic control, the plane would never have been shot down. Had Iran properly trained its forces at various levels, the plane would never have been shot down. Thus, even if Iran’s mistake of fact that resulted in the destruction of the aircraft was honest, it was not reasonable, and as such it would bear state responsibility for violating the victims’ human rights. And that violation is compounded by the initial attempts of Iranian authorities to obstruct the investigation and cover up the cause of the crash, from which they have thankfully desisted, but which nonetheless resulted in a violation of the positive obligation to effectively investigate unlawful deaths.

This is therefore how Iran should frame the reparations it provides – not as ex gratia charity payments, not (solely) as compensation due to states such as Ukraine or Canada, but as just satisfaction to those individuals whose rights it violated. In doing so, Iran should compensate its own nationals in the exact same way as it compensates foreigners, as equals in dignity. And it needs to provide sufficient assurances to the international community that a mistake such as this one, honest though it may have been, will never be repeated.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Mistakes of Fact When Using Lethal Force in International Law: Part II

Published on January 15, 2020        Author: 

 

If a state believes that it is the target of an ongoing or imminent armed attack and uses force to repel that attack, but it later turns out that it was mistaken and that there either was no such attack or that there was no necessity to respond to it, is that use of force in putative self-defence ipso facto a violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter? Or would the state’s mistake excuse it?

There are three possible options in answering this question:

  • An honest mistake of fact would excuse the state, as in ICL;
  • An honest and reasonable mistake would excuse the state, as in IHL and IHRL;
  • No mistake, however honest and reasonable, would excuse the state – it violated the prohibition on the use of force, and would have to provide reparation for any injury caused.

Any one of these options is plausible in principle. In particular, I do not think that the text of Article 51 of the Charter is entirely dispositive of the issue.

It’s true that Article 51 permits self-defence ‘if an armed attack occurs/ dans le cas où un Membre des Nations Unies est l’objet d’une agression armée’ and that one could therefore say that the existence of an armed attack is an objective fact and a necessary predicate for any self-defence claim. But we routinely do far greater violence to far clearer texts than it would take to incorporate a mistake of fact doctrine into the law of self-defence. The big question is whether we should, not whether we could.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Mistakes of Fact When Using Lethal Force in International Law: Part I

Published on January 14, 2020        Author: 

 

The tragic shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner over Tehran last week, which Iran has admitted to after several days of denial, has led me to think about a set of issues that was already on my mind when we were discussing the legality of the US strike on Soleimani. How exactly does international law deal with situations in which state agents use lethal force and do so under the influence of a mistake or error of fact? For example, when an Iranian air defence officer shoots down a civilian airplane thinking that he was shooting down an American cruise missile; or, when a state uses force against another state thinking, on the basis of imperfect intelligence information, that is the victim of an ongoing or imminent armed attack, and it later turns out that there was no such attack. Does international law provided reasonably consistent, coherent and fair rules to address such situations? To what extent can we generalize about such rules, and to what extent are they fragmented and context-specific?

Domestic legal systems have long dealt with such issues. Perhaps the most common such scenario – in some countries all too common – is the use of lethal force by the police against a person whom the officer concerned mistakenly believed was posing a threat to others, but who in fact posed no such threat.

Most domestic systems that I am familiar with have mistake of fact rules or doctrines in their criminal laws. Such rules, whether grounded in statute or in case law, often distinguish between honest mistakes, based purely on the subjective belief of the person using force, and reasonable mistakes, assessed on the basis of some kind of objective standard of behaviour. In most domestic systems mistake of fact can preclude criminal liability in some circumstances, and mitigate punishment in others. But municipal laws are rarely as clear with regard to civil, delictual responsibility in tort, which is the closer analogue to state responsibility in international law.

I can’t claim to have done genuinely comprehensive research on this topic, but it seems to me that there is a significant gap here in the international legal literature. How exactly do we handle mistakes of fact in the various different sub-fields of international law, especially when the mistake involves uses of lethal force? And are we content that whatever solutions we have come up with are the right ones?

This three-part series of posts is not even an attempt at filling this gap – think of it more as a conversation starter. I would be most grateful to readers for additional examples in the comments or for any other thoughts they might have. In this first post, I will briefly examine how mistakes of fact in using lethal force are addressed in international criminal law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. My second post will look at mistakes of fact in self-defence under the law on the use of force (jus ad bellum), examining as a case study the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes. The third and final post will then offer some conclusions and some tentative thoughts on the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 over Tehran.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Killing of Soleimani, the Use of Force against Iraq and Overlooked Ius Ad Bellum Questions

Published on January 13, 2020        Author: 

 

As most people know by now, the US killed Qassem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Quds force, in a drone strike on 3 January. Most commentators seem to agree that Soleimani’s killing was unlawful, but one issue has received less attention: the legality of using force against Iraq. The strike occurred in Baghdad, killing not only Suleimani but also five Iraqi nationals, including the leader and members of Kata’ib Hezbollah. This post examines the legality of the use of force against Iraq from a ius ad bellum perspective, arguing that a putative US claim to self-defense against Iraq stretches the doctrine of ‘unable or unwilling’ to breaking point.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Iran Unlawfully Retaliates Against the United States, Violating Iraqi Sovereignty in the Process

Published on January 8, 2020        Author: 

 

Today Iran launched a number of ballistic missiles against two US military bases in Iraq, in response to the US strike on Soleimani last week. As of now it is unclear whether the missiles caused any American or Iraqi casualties. Donald Trump will address the public in this regard in the morning today US time.

Hopefully there will be no further escalation of hostilities after this Iranian missile strike. It is crystal clear, however, that the strike was unlawful. It breached the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter with respect to both the United States and Iraq. It did so because of its purely retaliatory nature.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, gave Iran’s public justification for the strike on Twitter:

Note his explicit reliance on self-defence per Article 51 of the Charter, the reference to proportionality, and to Iran having concluded its defensive action. Clearly this is meant to say that Iran intends to take no further action (at least not openly) if the US for its part refrains from further hostilities. Again, let’s hope that such de-escalation actually happens. That said, however carefully framed, Zarif’s invocation of self-defence is still incapable of legally justifying Iran’s actions.

Let’s assume that the US strike on Soleimani was an unlawful use of force against Iran, as I argued that it most likely was. Let’s assume further that it was also an armed attack in the sense of Article 51 of the Charter (i.e. under the majority view, including that of the ICJ, a more serious and grave form of unlawful force), which would in principle entitle Iran to take measures in self-defence. Let’s also assume that the killing of Soleimani was in fact executed from the two US bases that Iran has now struck. Even if all of this is true, the basic problem for Iran is that the US strike on Soleimani was completed. Because that attack was over, there could be no necessity to act to repel it. It is only if Iran could argue on the facts that it anticipated future imminent attacks by the US that it could plausibly have a claim to self-defence, and Zarif mentioned no such attacks.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Soleimani Strike and Self-Defence Against an Imminent Armed Attack

Published on January 7, 2020        Author: 

 

The US drone strike on Qassem Soleimani, one of the most important members of the Iranian leadership, raises many complex questions of international law. This post will examine the lawfulness of the strike from the standpoint of the law on the use of force. It will first set out the parameters of the US justification for killing Soleimani, which is some variant of self-defence against an imminent armed attack. It will then look at the notion of an imminent attack, at the different ways such an attack can be repelled, and at whether, on the facts as we know them, the US strike should be regarded as lawful.

I will argue that even if one accepts a broad theory of self-defence against an attack that is yet to occur, such as that espoused by the US government itself, the strike is likely to be unlawful. It is improbable that the US would be able to meet the factual requirements that it needs to justify the strike – in particular, there are serious doubts that there even was an imminent attack, and there are serious doubts that the method the US chose to resist that supposed attack was necessary under the circumstances. If such was the case, the US breached the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter vis-à-vis both Iran and Iraq. Finally, the post will look at the illegality of the threats of further use of force made by President Trump against Iran, which are unlawful both as a matter of the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Killing of Soleimani and International Law

Published on January 6, 2020        Author: 

 

On 3 January, missiles launched from a United States Reaper drone struck two vehicles leaving Baghdad’s international airport. At least seven people died in the attack, including the commander of Iran’s Quds force, General Qassem Soleimani. On 5 January, Iranian Major General Hossein Dehghan, reported to be the military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, gave an exclusive interview to CNN and said Iran “would retaliate directly against US ‘military sites.’”

These killings and threats are the focus of this brief post. Developments are on-going, but enough has occurred so far to be able to analyze relevant principles of the jus ad bellum.

The killings and response have received extensive press coverage, unlike most drone attacks, such as the 63 against Somalia in 2019 alone. In connection with Soleimani, reporters have actually been asking about the legality of the killing. See Was It Legal to Kill a Top Iranian Military Leader? Much of the attention has focused on whether it was an “assassination”. In a call to reporters a U.S. State Department official rejected the term “assassination” to characterize the killings because ‘“Assassinations are not allowed under law.’” The answer leads to the next question, were the killings lawful?

The official went on to provide the analysis U.S. presidents have apparently relied on to justify killing with drones since 2002. (See, Mary Ellen O’Connell, Game of Drones Game of Drones, Review Essay, 109 Am. J. Int’l L. 889 (2015).) He applied two criteria to the case: “‘Do you have overwhelming evidence that somebody is going to launch a military or terrorist attack against you? Check that box. The second one is: Do you have some legal means to, like, have this guy arrested by the Belgian authorities or something? Check that box, because there’s no way anybody was going to stop Qassem Soleimani in the places he was running around—Damascus, Beirut. And so you take lethal action against him.’”

President Trump has also provided many tweets and other remarks relevant to a legal assessment. He said he ordered the attack to “prevent a war”, not as part of an on-going armed conflict with Iran. He also used terms relevant to a case for self-defense under the jus ad bellum. Suleimani, according to Trump, ‘“was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”’

The U.S. Department of Defense in a brief press statement also inferred self-defense. The U.S. took “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad… General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.” 

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

Reconciling new interpretations of the UN Charter with the customary international law on the use of force

Published on November 26, 2019        Author: 

 

In a recent lecture, published as a post on this blog, Professor Dapo Akande analysed the diversity of the rules on the use of force in international law and the implications for the evolution of the law in this area. In this post I wish to address one issue arising from this discussion but not directly addressed in Dapo’s lecture: the impact of changes to the UN Charter on the customary international law rules on the use of force.

In his lecture, Dapo argues persuasively that there are structural difficulties surrounding the evolution of Charter rules, and that these could be avoided if UN members were to interpret the UN Charter through subsequent practice under Article 31(3)(b) VCLT so that a ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution of the UN General Assembly ‘would be deemed not to be a breach of the prohibition of force under Art. 2(4) in the same way that a Council resolution authorizing force would have that effect.’ However, while this route would avoid the obstacles Dapo discusses that make it difficult to imagine customary international law bringing about a change in the Charter rules on the use of force, it raises the opposite question: how would modification of the Charter rules impact the customary prohibition on force?

As clarified by the ICJ in Nicaragua (Merits, para 179), customary law continues to exist and apply separately alongside even identical treaty provisions. Since the customary and treaty prohibitions exist independently, even if the Charter were to be interpreted so that force authorised through Uniting for Peace was no longer considered a breach of Article 2(4), this interpretation of the Charter wouldn’t automatically change custom to match. A priori, force lawfully authorised by the General Assembly under the Charter would therefore still be in violation of the customary prohibition on force. One could argue that the new treaty rule would simply prevail over the customary prohibition to the extent they conflict, but this seems difficult when the customary prohibition is probably also a jus cogens norm. Indeed, it seems rather that the purported interpretation of the Charter would – by analogy with a new treaty amendment conflicting with jus cogens which would presumably be caught by Article 53 VCLT – be invalid. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
 

The Diversity of Rules on the Use of Force: Implications for the Evolution of the Law

Published on November 11, 2019        Author: 

Last month, I had the pleasure and honour to deliver one of the keynote lectures at the Canadian Council of International Law Annual Conference. The theme of the conference was “Diversity and International Law” and I chose to speak about the diversity of rules on the use of force and the implications of that diversity for the evolution of the law. I am pasting the text of my lecture here

In this lecture I wish to address the question whether the law relating to the use of force – as set out in the UN Charter – has been capable, and is capable, of adapting to meet new threats and challenges facing the international community. My focus is not on the substance of the rules but rather on how they change. In particular, I wish to show that we need to be attentive to the nature of diverse nature of the rules in this area as we think about the possibility of their evolution.

Yesterday was the 74th anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter. It was around the time of the 50th anniversary of the UN that literature began to emerge suggesting that we might think of the UN Charter as a constitution for international society. Whether one agrees with that characterisation or not the Charter shares at least a couple of features with constitutions – it aims to lay down an overarching framework for the community it applies to, and is intended to be an abiding document in terms of duration. This immediately raises questions about whether the document can continue to regulate new and unforeseen challenges. This is particularly true of the Charter rules relating to the use of force.

Areas Where Evolution of the Charter Rules on Use of Force Have Been Called For

One can think of at least four areas where it has been argued that rules of the UN Charter ought to be adapted (or have been adapted, depending on one’s point of view) to meet new challenges : Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly, PDF & Email