The Righteous Use of Force under International Law

Abstract

The prohibition of force is one of the fundamental cornerstones of modern international law. This norm is not only enshrined in the UN Charter, but is also recognized as a jus cogens rule, which means that no agreement can affect it and states have no right to ignore it. This prohibition has played an important role in maintaining the stability of the international system, preventing aggressive wars, and defining the legal framework of international relations.

Yet international law does not treat the prohibition as absolute. Certain circumstances permit states to resort to force lawfully, most notably in cases of self-defense and when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Over time, new doctrines have emerged — humanitarian intervention, anticipatory self-defense, the protection of nationals abroad, and, more recently, responses to cyberattacks.

Over time, international practice has given rise to new debates and doctrines that go beyond the existing framework. The idea of ​​humanitarian intervention, which aims to protect the population from mass crimes; the concept of preventive defense, which seeks to justify the use of force in the face of the reality and inevitability of the threat with legal arguments; as well as the protection of citizens abroad and the ability to respond to cyber attacks in the modern era—all these pose a challenge to traditional norms.

The study of these issues is important because they reveal the tension between three essential values: sovereignty, security, and human rights. It is against this background that the dynamics of modern international law are formed and the boundaries of the legitimacy of the use of force are constantly questioned.

This article examines the historical development, legal framework, and contemporary controversies surrounding the righteous use of force under international law. It evaluates both established principles and contested practices, highlighting the tension between sovereignty, security, and human right