Talk:Self-defence in international law

International relations: Law Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Top-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Please update the article accordingly. Ucucha 10:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent threat → Self-defence in international law — As I made clear in my edit of this topic, the 'imminent threat' is part of the international law concept of self-defence. Because of their inherently linked nature, it is best for the topic of 'imminent threat' to be discussed under the banner of the proposed new page.— MarxMorley^(Talk) 15:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious interpretation

The article currently states:

Some commentators believe that the effect of Article 51 is only to preserve this right when an armed attack occurs, and that other acts of self-defence are banned by article 2(4). The more widely held opinion is that article 51 acknowledges this general right, and proceeds to lay down procedures for the specific situation when an armed attack does occur. Under the latter interpretation, the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not actually occurred is still permitted.

This makes no sense. It seems to be saying that the article acknowledges a right of self-defence even in the absence of armed attacks. The sentence, however, is absolutely explicit in talking about 'the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs'. 'If it occurs' means 'if it occurs' - it specifies the situation in which the statement will hold true. The sentence says absolutely nothing about any other situation - self-defence against other aggressive actions besides armed attacks, or 'preemptive self-defence' against 'potential armed attacks' that 'have not' actually occurred. I am sure that some commentators have tried to make such ridiculous arguments in order to defend the aggressions of their countries, and they might even constitute a majority in certain countries that regularly commit aggression, but the claim that the majority of commentators internationally interpret the article in this absurdly broad manner, which would legitimise any aggression as long as it is combined with an unsubstantiated assertion of a threat, needs to be sourced. --77.85.55.14 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]