This article challenges the effectiveness of the prevailing interpretation of the contemporary use of force model that is centred on a decidedly narrow selection of relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter). In the now seventy-five years of the UN Charter era, predominant modes of armed conflict have evolved so as to be largely unrecognizable when compared to the model of war that was contemplated when negotiating and ratifying the Charter. Nonetheless, modes of engaging with an actual or contemplated use of force remain rooted in a model developed more than seven decades ago. This article suggests that a new frame of analysis is needed. The “Reframer” approach and “Purposes and Principles” model developed herein remain just as firmly grounded in the UN Charter as the prevailing interpretation. However, this novel approach and model incorporate a degree of nuance and adaptiveness that is not feasible when applying the prevailing interpretation of the contemporary use of force model.

The protection of human rights through common law principles and values has a greater potential than has been recognised hitherto. First, the adoption at common law of the proportionality test of interferences with rights shows that, when human rights are at issue, the courts will apply an exigent test, allowing interferences only if, amongst other things, a less intrusive measure could not have been used. Secondly, the principle of legality, along with common law constitutionalism as developed recently by the Supreme Court, now means that there is a common law pendant to the rule in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Thirdly, in cases where the protection offered by the Act is displaced by obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, there is no displacement of common law rights, which continue to operate. Fourthly, common law rights are more open to the influences of the customary international law of human rights than are Convention rights. These factors combine to mean that the future of common law rights is an auspicious one.

The individual in international law-Human rights and freedoms — Charter of United Nations, Articles 55 and 56 — Whether selfexecuting — Whether they prohibit literacy requirement imposed by State on prospective voters — The law of the United States of America.

Charter of the United Nations — Interpretation of — Whether Articles 55 and 56 self-executing — Whether they prohibit literacy requirement imposed by State on prospective voters — The law of the United States of America.

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Charter of the United Nations — Effect on national immigration laws.

Aliens — Admission of — Quota system based on national originsValidity of — Whether compatible with Charter of the United Nations — Effect on Immigration Laws of Member States — The law of the United States of America.

Charter of the United Nations — Interpretation of — Effect in municipal law — On Immigration Laws of Member State — The law of the United States of America.

Treaties — Operation and enforcement of — Effect in municipal law — Charter of the United Nations — Effect on national Immigration Laws — The law of the United States of America.

Aliens — Position of — Right to Acquire Property — Human Rights — Charter of the United Nations.

Treaties — Operation of — Self — Executing Treaties — Charter of the United Nations — The Law of the United States of America.

Charter of the United Nations — Interpretation of — Human Rights and Freedoms.

Individual in International Law — Human Rights and Freedoms — Charter of the United Nations — Aliens — Effect of United Nations Charter on Aliens’ Rights to Own Real Property — Treaties — When Self-Executing — Question of Self-Executing Provisions of the United Nations Charter.