International Law Review

International Law Review

The Theory of Accumulation of Events in the Appeal to International Self-Defense

Document Type : academic

Authors
Morteza Ahmadi Fard 1
Mehdi Hatami 2
Farid Azadbakht 3
1 Public International Law Candidate, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Law, Department of Law, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of Law, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Kermanshah Branch, Kermanshah, Iran
10.22066/cilamag.2023.706167
Abstract
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter preserves the right of states to use force in self-defense "in case of armed attack" until the Security Council provides the necessary security. It is generally believed that resorting to force that establishes the right of self-defense must be a strong and unpreventable armed force that can justify self-defense for the victim state. In conformity with this, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed the existence of a threshold for distinguishing between "the most extreme forms" and "less extreme forms" of the use of armed force. The theory of the accumulation of incidents refers to a series of minor incidents that have accumulated until they reach the threshold of armed conflict. In fact, this theory does not have the threshold of severity desired by the ICJ. However, certain governments have resorted to it in order to justify the existence of their right to self-defense. This article has come to the conclusion that there are signs suggesting that transnational terrorist attacks have caused serious problems for governments; As a result, the tendency to accept this theory, which previously had little support, has increased to some extent.
 
Keywords
Doctrine of accumulation of incidents
Self-Defense
armed attack
Article 51 of the UN Charter

Subjects

  1. - Books

    1. Brownlie, Ian, International Law and the Use of Force between States, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
    2. Clause, Kreb, The International Court of Justice and the Principle of Non-Use of Force, The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, 2016.
    3. Corten, O., The Law Against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010.
    4. Gray, Christine, International Law and the Use of Force, 4th, OUP, 2018.
    5. Randelzhofer, Albrecht, “Article 51” in Bruno Simma et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd Ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

     

     

    - Articles

    1. Bothe, Michael, “Terrorism and the Legality of Pre–emptive Force”, The European Journal of International Law,V (2)14, 2003.
    2. Chainoglou, Kalliopi, "Reconceptualising Self-Defence in International Law", King's Law Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2007.
    3. Murphy, "Protean Jus Ad Bellum", Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, No. 405, 2008.
    4. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, "principles of international law on the use of force by states in self-defence", international law ilp wp, 2005.
    5. Gray, Christine, “The International Court of Justice and the Use of Force”, in Christian J. Tams, and James Sloan (eds), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford, 2013; online edn, Oxford Academic, 2014. https://ssrn.com/abstract =2311217 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2311217
    6. Jordan Paust, “Armed Attacks and Imputation: Would a Nuclear Weaponized Iran Trigger Permissible Israeli and US Measures of Self-Defense?”, Georgetown Journal of International Law,
    7. Menachem Feder, Norman, “Reading the U.N. Charter Connotatively: Toward a New Definition of Armed Attack”, 19 Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol., 1978.
    8. Nader, P, “The Baltic states should adopt the self-defence pinpricks doctrine: the “accumulation of events” threshold as a deterrent to Russian hybrid warfare. Journal on Baltic Security, 3(1), 2017.
    9. Talmon, Stefan A. G. and Heipertz, Miriam, “The U.S. Killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani: Of Wrong Trees and Red Herrings, and Why the Killing May Be Lawful after All”, Stefan Talmon (ed.), German Practice in International Law 2020, Bonn Research Papers on International Law Paper 18/2020, pp. 1-16 Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3530273 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530273 Terry D. Gill and Paul A. L., “Ducheine, Anticipatory Self-Defense in the Cyber Context”, International Law Studies, Vol. 89, 2013.
    10. Yaroslav, Shiryaev, “The Right of Armed Self-Defense in International Law and Self-Defense Arguments Used in the Second Lebanon War”, Acta Societatis Martensis, 14, 2008.

     

    - Thesis

    1. Abhimanyu, George Jain, Rationalising International Law Rules on Self-Defence: The Pin-Prick Doctrine, Advocate, Delhi High Court”,M, Georgetown University Law Centre; B.A., LL.B. (Hons.), National Law School of India University, Vol. XII, 2013.
    2. O’Meara, Christopher, the Right of Self-­Defence in International Law, Faculty of Laws, University College London, Submitted for the degree of PhD, 2018.

    - Documents

    1. Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 Feb 2007, ICJ Rep
    2. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), Merits, Judgment of 19 Dec 2005, ICJ Rep, 2005. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America); Merits, "International Court of Justice (ICJ)", 27 June 1986, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases, ICJ, 4023a44d2.html.
    3. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, ICJ GL, No. 64, 24 May 1980.
    4. General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (14 Dec 1974).
    5. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon): https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/94
    6. Security Council 8645th Meeting (PM) 24 October 2019.
    7. ICJ Reports (2003) 324, para 14.

     

    - Websites

    1. Francisco Lobo, “One Piece at a Time: The ‘Accumulation of Events’ Doctrine and the ‘Bloody Nose”, Debate on North Korea, 2018. available at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/one-piece-time-accumulation- events-doctrine-and-bloody-nose-debate-north-korea, Friday, 16 March 2018.

     

  • Receive Date 24 November 2022
  • Revise Date 03 April 2023
  • Accept Date 03 April 2023