WEBINAR REPORT

PSDA

INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBMITTED BY: VIDIT GARG SUPERVISED BY: Mr. Ashish Saraswat

SECTION: M Assistant Professor,

VSLLS SEMESTER: 6

ENROLLMENT NO.: 15217703520

VIVEKANANDA INSTITIUTE OF
PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

VSLLS

1
 WEBINAR REPORT
TITLE: - ARTICLE 2(4) OF THE UN CHARTER AND RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT

DATE- 24TH MAY 2023

DURATION- 1.5 HOURS
ORGANISER- VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES, VIPS

INTRODUCTION
Mrs. Verma initiated the webinar by delivering opening remarks on behalf of Mr. Aditya
Singh, introducing herself to the participants. She proceeded to commence her lecture by
shedding light on the historical significance of arbitration as a method to resolve disputes.
Moving on, Mrs. Verma delved into the elucidation of Article 2(4) of the Charter, which
stipulates that all member states must refrain from employing or threatening to use force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. This provision
was highlighted for its considerable significance in fostering peaceful international relations.
She also delved into the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). She expounded upon
R2P as a comprehensive framework aimed at addressing humanitarian crises and preventing
the occurrence of mass atrocities. Mrs. Verma proceeded to elaborate on the three
fundamental pillars that constitute R2P:
1. The responsibility of the state to safeguard its own population: States bear the primary
obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of their citizens.
2. The responsibility of the international community to assist states in fulfilling their
obligations: The global community has a duty to extend support to states in protecting their
populations and averting atrocities.
3. The responsibility of the international community to intervene in cases where states fail to
protect their populations and engage in mass atrocities: In instances where a state proves
incapable or unwilling to safeguard its citizens, the international community may undertake
appropriate measures, including diplomatic, humanitarian, and potentially military
intervention, to protect the affected population.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE WEBINAR

Mrs. Verma’s discussion revolved around the 19th and early 20th centuries wherein going to
war was a common state policy. It was only in the 1907 Eighth Convention that peaceful
means of settling disputes started gaining importance. Arbitration was also included in the
convention, with a significant portion dedicated to it.

2
However, despite these efforts, the use of force was still prevalent. The League of Nations
and the subsequent Ring of Nations had provisions like Article 10, 12, 13, and 16, which
aimed to restrict the use of force. They encouraged arbitration and allowed for a cooling-off
period before resorting to war or force against another state.
But these measures had limitations. They did not clearly address whether measures short of
war, such as reprisals and blockades, were covered or if the provisions were applicable to
non- signatory states. There was also no collective system to act against members who
violated the cooling-off period.
The League of Nations was not effective in preventing the Second World War. However,
during this time, independent attempts were made to address the use of force and going to
war. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, concluded in November 1948, was considered significant as it
sought to outlaw aggressive war and the use of force as a state policy.
Despite its importance, the Kellogg-Briand Pact could not prevent the Second World War due
to loopholes and shortcomings. It did not clearly define whether measures short of war would
be covered, lacked authoritative provisions for treaty breaches, failed to provide effective
collective enforcement, and did not establish a binding dispute settlement mechanism.
The United Nations Charter, resulting from the Second World War and replacing the League
of Nations, not only outlawed aggressive war but also prohibited any use of force. Unlike the
League of Nations Charter, the UN Charter explicitly prohibited the use of force in any form.
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states that all member states shall refrain from the
threat or use of force against the political independence of any state, which is inconsistent
with the purposes of the United Nations. The purpose of the United Nations, mentioned in
Article 1, is to maintain international peace and security.
To achieve this, the UN Charter emphasizes the use of peaceful means to settle disputes.
Chapter 6 of the Charter specifically discusses peaceful means of dispute settlement, while
Chapter 7 provides for enforcement actions. Chapter 7 differentiates from Chapter 6 as it
enables collective enforcement measures rather than mere recommendations.
However, despite the prohibition of force outlined in Article 2, paragraph 4, the use of force
is not entirely prohibited under the Charter. The structure of the UN Charter allows for
flexibility, and powerful nations often hinder collective measures from being taken by the
United Nations. This undermines the idea of collective security.
Chapter 7, which allows for collective enforcement, has its drawbacks. It requires the
Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of
aggression before recommending measures to be taken. However, the Charter lacks clear
definitions of these terms, and defining aggression has been an ongoing process.
In recent times, Uganda attacked Congo in a conflict against the state. It was discovered that
Congo had somehow assisted non-state actors, which raised concerns about its role. The
international community also found that the attack on Congo in 2005 was not proportionate
or justified, based on the Caroline case principle.
The concept of anticipatory self-defence is controversial and raises significant debate.

3
In 1980, Israel attacked Iraq after suspecting them of developing nuclear weapons. The
United States has also been involved in similar cases. The concept of anticipatory self-
defence in Israeli and Arab conflicts, such as the 1967 war, where Arab nations planned to
attack Israel, is a complex issue. Israel pre-emptively acted and occupied certain territories.
However, it can be argued that this action was not in line with the right to self-defence, as it
violated territorial integrity.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the international community passed several
resolutions, including Operation Enduring Freedom, to combat terrorism. The military forces
of various nations, including the United States, were sent to Afghanistan to remove Al-
Qaeda. This action was considered a collective self-defence response to the threat of
terrorism.
A definition of criminal acts related to terrorism was internationally established in 2004. Acts
such as intentional killings of civilians, hostage-taking to induce fear, and intimidation of
populations fall under this definition. Entities involved in such acts can face sanctions.
The principle of protecting the territorial integrity and political independence of states is
crucial. The right to self-defence arises automatically when these principles are endangered.
Invasion of another state without justification is prohibited, as stated in Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter. The 1967 June war, for example, was considered unlawful and unjustified.
While there have been criticisms, humanitarian intervention by the Security Council is now a
well-established practice. The responsibility to protect emerged as a new concept after the
United Nations Charter was enacted. It mainly addresses civil wars where atrocities and
genocides occur. The Charter emphasizes non-interference in domestic affairs, but under
Chapter 7, intervention can be justified to maintain international peace and security.
Challenges to international peace, such as interstate conflicts, internal conflicts, weapons of
mass destruction, terrorism, and international organized crimes, have emerged in recent
times. The United Nations appointed panels and established a machinery to address such
challenges. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains a subject of debate.
States have a responsibility to protect their populations from avoidable catastrophes, such as
mass murder, rape, and diseases. The international community, through the United Nations,
also has a responsibility to intervene and halt these crimes, including genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The concept of responsibility to protect was
accepted by the General Assembly in 2005 but is not legally binding.
In conclusion, the responsibility to protect concept aims to prevent and address atrocities
committed against populations. It complements the principles of the UN Charter and allows
for intervention in cases where international peace and security are at risk.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: Article 2(4) explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force by
member states against the political independence of any state, which is inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations. This provision reflects the commitment to maintain
international peace and security through peaceful means and the principle of non-interference
in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.
4
2. Use of force not entirely prohibited: While Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force, it is
important to note that the UN Charter allows for flexibility. The Charter acknowledges that
there may be situations where the use of force is justified, such as self-defense against an
armed attack (Article 51) or collective enforcement actions authorized by the Security
Council (Chapter 7).
3. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept: The Responsibility to Protect is a principle that
emerged after the UN Charter was enacted. It recognizes that states have a primary
responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and
crimes against humanity. However, when states are unable or unwilling to protect their
populations, the international community has a responsibility to intervene through
diplomatic, humanitarian, and, if necessary, military means.
4. Complementary to the UN Charter: The R2P concept complements the principles of the
UN Charter, particularly the commitment to maintain international peace and security. It
emphasizes the need for timely and decisive action to prevent and address mass atrocities,
even if it involves interfering in a state's internal affairs.
5. Scope of R2P: The R2P concept primarily addresses situations of mass atrocities, such as
genocide and crimes against humanity, occurring within a state's borders. It does not provide
a justification for intervention based on political or economic interests. The use of force
under R2P is seen as a last resort and should be proportionate, necessary, and authorized by
the Security Council or conducted with regional or international support.

CONCLUSION
In summary, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force, while the
Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept recognizes the responsibility of states and the
international community to prevent and address mass atrocities. R2P operates within the
framework of the UN Charter and aims to strike a balance between the principle of non-
interference and the duty to protect vulnerable populations.