Talk:Use of force in international law

"threat... of force"
There's a reference to "threat" in the quoted Article 24 and I'd like some explanation as to how it's meant to be interpreted. For example, both Israel and the United States have made repeated explicit threats to attack Iran, not on the basis of the latter's use of force, but on the basis of, usually, their production of a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, Iran has made similar claims that it would use force, but only in self-defence after an attack has occurred. Do either or both of these constitute an illegal threat, and why or why not? --Jammoe (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking, I'm not sure if anyone really made a threat of the use force as defined in article 2(4). There are few definition of what constitutes a threat in this context (if you want to make up your mind read up the case Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ) However, addressing your point on self-defense. If a state uses force in self-defense as defined by customary international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter limits the applicability article 2(4). So if a state threatens the use of force within its right of self-defense, article 2(4) is not applicable. Therefore it is not an illegal threat. The US and Israel could argue that they are within their customary rights of self-defense to use force against Iran if and only if Iran is building weapons of mass destruction. Then any threat of the use of force is legal. However, this alleged right of pre-emptive / anticipatory self-defense is very controversial.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Use of force by states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Use of force in international law. There was clear consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory. Many alternatives were discussed, but Walrasiad's suggestion is the one that ultimately gained consensus. Participants did not explicitly indicate what they wished to happen to the basename, but the reasons given for the move suggest it may not be appropriate as a redirect to this article, so I'm going to leave it as a red link. No prejudice against someone recreating it as a disambiguation page or redirect. Colin M (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Use of force by states → Aggression in international law – The current title is really misleading. Yes, the UN charter refers to the use of force, but "use of force by states" could also refer to many domestic state actions, such as for example arrests, deportation, police brutality, etc. A synonym for use of force in international law is act of aggression or armed attack (see ), either of which would make it clearer what the article is about. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Against renaming, not all use of force is aggression and it is not considered as that, and this is a more wide article covering cases when use of force is accepted as when states defend against armed attack, for example. This is use of force by states in international relations and law, pretty clear content and hard to miss that point. What eventually can work as the new title is something as "Use of force by states in international law" to make things more clear. 109.93.176.205 (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support renaming, oppose proposed title. The current title is ambiguous, and could refer to Monopoly on violence. However, the proposed title in inaccurate, as the use of force by states is not limited to aggression. An alternative title might be "State force in international law". BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "State force in international law",sounds ok. Something in that way or as I wrote "Use of force by states in international law" or "Use of force by states (international law)" in that case I support renaming, but to rename as "Aggression in international law" that I oppose totally. 109.93.176.205 (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The current title suffers only from the not too serious defect of lacking context, it is clear from the article content that it is intended to refer to the general principle of non-use of force in IL so what we want is a title that says something like that. The proposed title may get confused with the crime of aggression that since 2018 assigns individual responsibility for acts which manifestly violate the general prohibition. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support something, and the proposed title ain't bad. The current title is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay broader than the topic it's actually about, as others have mentioned Red   Slash  21:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title change. But would support "Use of force in international law".  The term "state" is superfluous, as international law is the law between states, so it is sufficiently concise.  Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with that, or International law and the use of force.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Walrasiad's proposal. Srnec (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Walrasiad. I also suggest "Use of force in international relations" or even just "Force (international relations)". //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support either the proposed change, or "The use of force in international law" . Eat memory (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title change. It equates the concept to a war crime. Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject International relations has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE  13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * (came from WikiProject International Relations) Oppose proposed title change, support "Use of force in international law". The current title is too broad. The appropriate title refers to the content of the article, which is about the use of force in international law. This article is broader than Self-defence in international law, so "Use of force in international law" seems appropriate to me, and "Aggression" does not seem to cover self-defense enough in my eyes - only the wrongful acts covered by Chapter VII of the UN Charter are covered by the latter term. Pilaz (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)