Talk:Self-defence in international law

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Please update the article accordingly. Ucucha 10:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Imminent threat → Self-defence in international law — As I made clear in my edit of this topic, the 'imminent threat' is part of the international law concept of self-defence. Because of their inherently linked nature, it is best for the topic of 'imminent threat' to be discussed under the banner of the proposed new page.— MarxMorley  (Talk) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious interpretation
The article currently states:

''Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted. ''

This makes no sense. It seems to be saying that the article acknowledges a right of self-defence even in the absence of armed attacks. The sentence, however, is absolutely explicit in talking about 'the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs'. 'If it occurs' means 'if it occurs' - it specifies the situation in which the statement will hold true. The sentence says absolutely nothing about any other situation - self-defence against other aggressive actions besides armed attacks, or 'preemptive self-defence' against 'potential armed attacks' that 'have not' actually occurred. I am sure that some commentators have tried to make such ridiculous arguments in order to defend the aggressions of their countries, and they might even constitute a majority in certain countries that regularly commit aggression, but the claim that the majority of commentators internationally interpret the article in this absurdly broad manner, which would legitimise any aggression as long as it is combined with an unsubstantiated assertion of a threat, needs to be sourced. --77.85.55.14 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)