Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Birth and infancy of a Charter rule: the open framework
- 2 The menu of choice: a guide to interpretation
- 3 Precedents of the international court of justice
- 4 Deciphering post-Charter practice: means and limits
- 5 Open threats to extract concessions
- 6 Demonstrations of force
- 7 Countervailing threats or: threats in self-defence
- 8 Findings and conclusions
- 9 Epilogue: the law in operation
- Annex
- Bibliography
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
2 - The menu of choice: a guide to interpretation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Birth and infancy of a Charter rule: the open framework
- 2 The menu of choice: a guide to interpretation
- 3 Precedents of the international court of justice
- 4 Deciphering post-Charter practice: means and limits
- 5 Open threats to extract concessions
- 6 Demonstrations of force
- 7 Countervailing threats or: threats in self-defence
- 8 Findings and conclusions
- 9 Epilogue: the law in operation
- Annex
- Bibliography
- Index
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
Summary
Doubtless India would hold … that its action is aimed at a just end. But, if our Charter means anything, it means that States are obligated to seek a solution of their differences by peaceful means, are obligated to utilize the procedures of the United Nations when other peaceful means have failed.
US Ambassador Adlai Stevenson in the UN Security Council, 18 December 1961, referring to the Indian seizure of GoaFrom intent to content
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the noun ‘threat’ is related to ‘throng’ (a crowd) and appears to go back to the sense ‘to press’. This eventually came to mean a ‘declaration of hostile determination or of loss, pain, punishment, or damage to be inflicted in retribution for or conditionally upon some course; a menace. Also fig. an indication of impending evil’. The French Charter uses the word menace, which, according to the dictionary, denotes: ‘A declaration or indication of hostile intention, or of a probable evil or catastrophe; a threat.’ Thus it seems that the ordinary meaning of the expression ‘threat of force’ is not very helpful to identify the real-life implications of article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It merely suggests that a hostile intent must be communicated in some form, and that this communication must contain a reference to the use of force.
The preceding chapter described how the historical origins of article 2(4), too, have left wide margins of interpretation as to the exact parameters of illicit action.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Threat of Force in International Law , pp. 37 - 64Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007