THE RIGHT OF EXISTENCE AND SELF DEFENSE

One of the fundamental right of a state once it comes into being

This right is deemed the most important and most comprehensive, as all of the
other rights are supposed to flow or be derived from it
By virtue of this right, the state may use such necessary measure, sometimes
including the use of force, as may be necessary to resist any danger to its
existence
This right does not depend for its validity on other states previous recognition or
consent
This right has been expressly acknowledged in certain important agreements:
1. United Nations Charter
2. Draft Declaration of the Rights and Duties of the States prepared by
International Law Commission at the request of the General Assembly
Requisite of Right
The right may be resorted to only upon a clear showing of a grave and actual danger to
the security of the state and, furthermore, the self-defensive measures must be limited
by the necessity and kept clearly within it.
Mere apprehended danger or any direct threat to the state may not, in itself
alone, warrant the employment of force against a suspected or potential enemy
This idealistic concept has not been widely accepted as far as observance and
practice of states are concerned
Examples in history of a more pragmatic concept of the right of self-defense:
1. Mobilization of Russia in 1914 which is the result of Germanys declaration
of war against it, asserting that its security has been imperiled.
2. Great Britain seized the Danish fleet on 1807 to prevent it from falling into
the hands of the French with whom they were then at war.
3. Japans invasion of Korea in 1904 on the ground that Russia, its enemy
then, also had eyes on the country and might use it as a base of
operations against Japan.
4. Russias invasion of Finland on 1939 as, according to them, a strategic
measure to defend itself from an anticipated German invasion.
5. United States attack on Iraq on the ground that it is storing biological and
chemical weapons of mass destruction intended to be used against
Americans.
The Cuban Missile Crisis
In 1962, the United States established a quarantine in Cuba. Then President
Kennedy declared that the peace of the world and the security of the United States is in
peril or has been endangered by reason of the establishment by the Sino-Soviet powers
of an offensive military in Cuba.
He interdicted the delivery of offensive weapons and associated materials to
Cuba, by enforcing the US Secretary of Defense to employ land, sea, and air forces; no

force is to be used except in case of failure or refusal to comply with the directions of
the US Defense Secretary.
Fortunaltely, the USSR backed down, and thus preempted the outbreak of what
would have been World War III.
Regional Arrangements
Regional arrangements are also known as collective self-defense. It is a security
arrangement, political, regional, or global, in which each state in the system accepts that
the security of one is the concern of all, and therefore commits to a collective response
to threats to, and breaches to peace.
Examples:
1. Organization of American States
2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
3. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union
4. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) composed of China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
5. Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), composed of Russia,
Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, and Georgia
6. Union of South American Nations (USAN)
7. Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union
Balance of Power
One reason for the regional arrangement is to provide for the balance of power
as between the States. According to Vattel, it is an arrangement of affairs so that no
state shall be in the position to have absolute mastery and dominion over others.
Recently, the world was polarized between democratic and communist countries.
The maintenance of the balance of power contributed in a very real way to international
peace although, being an armed peace, it was far from the ideals sought under the
United Nations Charter.
Aggression
Before a State may invoke its right from self-defense, it was provided that there
must be an actual aggression over it to warrant the use of necessary measures to
protect itself. How do we say then that there is already a presence of aggression?
Aggression was defined in Article 1 by the UN General Assembly on 1947 as the
use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity of political
independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of
the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
Traditionally Allowable Coercive Measures
Even though use of force must be justified by the actual aggression of another
State, there are certain measures or self-help that have been traditionally allowed.

Severance of diplomatic relations this should only be resorted to unless truly

necessary because severance might endanger peace.

Retorsion any form of counter-measures in response to an unfriendly act. This

includes shutting of ports to vessels of unfriendly state, revocation of tariff
concessions not guaranteed by treaty, or display of naval forces in the waters of
the unfriendly state.
Reprisal any kind of coercive measure whereby one State seeks to exercise a
deterrent effect or obtain redress or satisfaction, directly or indirectly, for the
consequences of the illegal act of another state which has refused to make
amends for such illegal act. Under the UN Charter, reprisals have been narrowed
down especially since situations lime these should be brought to the Security
Council.
Embargo can consist of seizure of vessels in the high seas. It might also be
pacific, as when a State keeps its own vessel for fear that it may find their way in
foreign territory.
Boycott suspension of trade or business relations with the nationals of the
offending State.
Non-intercourse suspension of all commercial intercourse with the state.
Pacific blockade naval operation carried out in time of peace whereby a State
prevents access to or exit from particular ports or portions of the coast of another
state for the purpose f compelling the latter to yield to the demands made by the
blockading State.