Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:49:38.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reprisals as a Method of Enforcing International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Fiona Mckinnon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reprisals originally served individuals seeking redress for an injustice suffered abroad. The concept, however, has undergone extensive development. Nowadays, reprisals are -in themselves illegal- retaliatory measures used by one state seeking redress for an illegal act committed by another. The prerequisites for legal reprisals areformulated in the Naulilaa Incident arbitration of 1928. In her examination of the recent history of the concept of reprisals, this arbitration is the author's starting point. After this examination she compares reprisals to other methods of redress. Finally, she investigates the limitation of the use of reprisals as laid down in humanitarian law treaties.

Type
Student Contributions
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , September 1991 , pp. 221 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Oppenheim, L., International Law, Vol. 02, 136 (1952).Google Scholar

2. Id., at 139 (note I). The term ‘general reprisals’ is used nowadays by the United Kingdom for the authorisation of the Royal Navy to seize all enemy ships and goods in time of war.

3. Reprisals, 9 Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 322 (1986).

4. Roberts, G.B., Self-help in Combatting State Sponsored Terrorism: Self-defence and Peace-time Reprisals, 19 Case W. Res. J.I.L. 185 (1987).Google Scholar

5. Id., at 286.

6. Whiteman, M.M., 12 Digest of International Law 159 (1971).Google Scholar

7. Id., at 168.

8. SCOR, U.N. (1462d mtg.), Dec. 31, 1968.Google Scholar

9. Blum, Y.Z., The Beirut Raid and the International Double Standard: A Reply to Falk, 64 AJIL 73 (1970).Google Scholar

10. New York Times, Dec. 27,1968.

11. Bowett, D., Reprisals Involving Recourse to Armed Force, 66 AJIL 1 (1972).Google Scholar

12. O'Brien, W.V., Reprisals, Deterrence and Self-defence in Countertenor Operations, 30 Va. J.I.L. 421 (1990).Google Scholar

13. Bowett, D., supra note 11, at 9, 1Google Scholar

14. Id., at 10–19.

15. Id., at 21.

16. Id., at 24–26.

17. O'Brien, W.V., supra note 12, at 469.Google Scholar

18. Whiteman, M.M., supra note 6, at 153.Google Scholar

19. Id., at 312.

20. Id., at 154; cited from Kelsen, H., Collective Security under International Law, US Naval War College, International War Studies 1954, at 34, 35 (1956).Google Scholar

21. Sanctions, 9 Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 338 (1986).

22. Id., at 340.

23. Humanitarian Intervention, 3 Encyclopaedia of Public International Law 213 (1982).

24. Id., at 213.

25. Roberts, G.B., supra note 4, at 247.Google Scholar

26. Waldock, C.H.M., The Regulations of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law, II Hague Receuil de Cours 455 (1952).Google Scholar

27. Bowett, D., supra note 11, at 1.Google Scholar

28. Corfu Channel case, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4.

29. Brownlie, I., International Law and the Use of Force (1963).Google Scholar

30. Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 103.

31. This point is less clearcut. It may be that in the light of SC Res. 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which authorises the use of all necessary means to uphold and implement SC Res. 660 of Aug. 2, 1990 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area of the Middle East.

32. Tucker, R.W., Reprisals and Self-defence: The Customary Law, 66 AJIL 593 (1972).Google Scholar

33. Almond, H.H. (Jr.), Law and Armed Conflict: Some of the Shared Policies, 9 Case W. Res. J.I.L. 192(1977).Google Scholar

34. Oppenheim, L.,, supra note 1, at 562.Google Scholar

35. Roberts, A., Guelff, R., Documents on the Laws of War 17 (1989).Google Scholar

36. Oppenheim, L., supra note 1, at 562 (note I).Google Scholar

37. Id., at 561.

38. Id., at 137.

39. Id., at 137, 138 (notes I and 2).

40. Id., at 563, 564.

41. Army Legal Services, Law of Armed Conflict Instructors Manual, ALS UKLF 9 (1980).

42. Elagab, O.Y., The Legality of Non-forcible Counter-measures in International Law 12 (1988).Google Scholar

43. Oppenheim, L., supra note 1, at 143.Google Scholar

44. Commentary to Geneva Convention 11949, ICRC, at 342. Cited there. Resolutions of the Institute of International Law, Oxford Session of 1880, The Laws of War on Land, Aits. 85 and 86.

45. The substance of this appeal may be found in the Commentary to Geneva Convention I, supra note 44, at 343.

46. Kalshoven, F., Belligerent Reprisals 210 (1971).Google Scholar

47. Id., at 214. 215.

48. Id., at 216–263.

49. Albrecht, A.R., War Reprisals in the War Crimes Trials and in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 47 AJ1L 59O(1953).Google Scholar

50. Commentary to Geneva Convention I, supra note 44, at 346.

51. le Fur, L., Des Représailles en Temps de Guerre, from F. Kalshoven, supra note 46, at 24.Google Scholar

52. G.A. Res. 2625(XXV) of 1970.

53. Waldock, C.H.M., supra note 26, at 458–460.Google Scholar