Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
THENICARAGUAJUDGEMENT...
29
distinguished,basedonitsKgravity”criterion,betweenanarmedattackandamere
frontierincident.YoramDinsteinlabelsthequestionoffrontierincidentsasKparticu-
larlybothersome”.40Indeed,thereisnoreasoninpractice,basedonthelaw,toremove
small-scaleincidentsoftheuseofforcefromthespectrumofarmedattacks.Otheremi-
nentscholarshavesupportedthisreasoning.JosephL.Kunzwrote:KIfKarmedattack’
meansillegalarmedattackitmeans,ontheotherhand,anyillegalarmedattack,evena
smallborderincident.”41TowhichGerardFitzmauricestated,inaratherironicalway,
that:K[T]herearefrontierincidentsandfrontierincidents.Somearetrivial,somemay
beextremelygrave.”42Indeed,asfarasthematerialaspectofarmedattackisconcerned,
theconceptelaboratedbytheICJbasedontheKgravity”criterionmayunderminethe
rightofself-defence.Moreover,Kstrictlynecessarypolicymeasurestorepeltheattack”,
whichwerereferredtointheResolutionoftheInstitutdedroitinternational,donot
needtobeelectiveenoughinagivencase.Oneshouldrememberthateveryactofuse
offorceisassessedunderthelegalconditionsofnecessityandproportionality.Tisalso
concernssmall-scalearmedacts.Likewise,forcibleresponsestowrongfulforcibleacts
areadjudgedlawfulorunlawfulbasedontheseconditions.Otherwise,i.e.intheevent
therighttoforciblyrespondtothemwithintheconceptofself-defenceisdenied,a
targetedStatecanturnouttobetherealvictimState.
However,thelegaljustificationforactionsoftargetStatesisnotobvious.Taking
intoaccountthefundamentalsignificanceofpeaceandtheallegedperemptorycharac-
teroftheprohibitionofthreatoruseofforce,onecanarguethatactsofarmedattacks
imposenegativeobligationsonallStates,i.e.theprohibitionagainstsupportingthe
aggressororrecognisingtheterritorialacquisitionsgainedasaresultofanarmedattack.
Butdoesanactofarmedattackcreatepositiveobligations,inparticular,arighttoactio
popularis?Afterall,maintaininginternationalpeaceandsecurityistheobligationof
theKinternationalcommunityasawhole’andembodiesagenuinecommunityinterest.
Asfarascollectiveself-defenceisconcerned,itisworthreferringonceagaintoYoram
Dinstein’sopinion.Accordingtohim:
anarmedattackislikeaninfectiousdiseaseinthebodypoliticofthefamilyofnations.
EveryStatehasademonstrableself-interestinthemaintenanceofinternationalpeaceand
security,foroncethediseasestartstospreadthereisnotellingifandwhereitwillstop.(ł)
AslongasthesystemofcollectivesecuritywithintheUNOrganizationisinelective(ł),
collectiveself-defenceconstitutesthesoleinsurancepolicyagainstanarmedattack.43
Nevertheless,theICJintheNicaraguajudgementestablishedstrictconditionson
theexerciseoftherightofcollectiveself-defence.Tus,onehastoreturnnolensvolens
totheconceptofarmedattack.
40Dinstein,supranote13,p.175.
41J.L.Kunz,IndividualandCollectiveSelf-DefenceinArticle51oftheCharteroftheUnitedNations,41
AmericanJournalofInternationalLaw872(1947),p.878.
42G.G.Fitzmaurice,TeDefinitionofAggression,1International&ComparativeLawQuarterly137
(1952),p.139.
43Dinstein,supranote13,p.225.
