that intends lawfully to use force against such non-state actors.456 Also several scholars have argued that states can lawfully resort to self-defence in these kinds of situations because otherwise these territories would turn out to be safe havens for non-state actors.457 If another look is taken on state practice, such as the Israeli’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, that attack was partly justified on grounds of necessity of self-defence because Lebanon could not (rather than was unwilling to) prevent its territory from being used as a base for terrorist activities.458 In addition in 1995, the Turkish Army invaded Iraq in an anti PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) operation.459 In a letter to the UN Security Council, Turkey argued that since Iraq could not exercise control over the northern part of its territory and the invasion originated from principles of self-preservation, it had not violated any sovereignty.460 Although this right may exist for states to use force against non-state actors in the territory of another state which is unable to control the latter, strict requirements must be put on this use and special emphasis must be put on both the prerequisites of necessity and proportionality. Thus recent events should be held in high regard where Somalia has given permission for actions which it is unable to take. Such permission should, if possible, always be sought from an unable host state, as was indeed the case with the UN Security Councils measures against pirates operating off the coast of Somalia.
5.5.2 Conclusion It seems from all of the above that although there may exists extreme positions on the requirements of self-defence when a non-state actor attacks, from one that demands full attribution to a state and another that requires no attribution, that international law recognizes first of all that an armed attack may be committed by a non-state actor and secondly that it recognizes a position which is in the middle of the two extremes. When an armed attack has been identified, a state may, if there exists a connection between a non-state actor and a state which can be classified under one of the four classifications proposed in this thesis in Chapter 5.5.1, whether it be support, harbouring or aiding and abetting, resort to defensive measures under article 51 if these actions fulfil the necessity requirement of self-defence. Thus the violation of the host state’s sovereignty is justified under international law if such a 456
Antonin Cassese: International Law, p. 472. Tom Ruys and Sten Verhoeven: “Attacks by Private Actors and the Right of Self-Defence”, p. 317. 458 Kimberley M. Trapp: “Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right to Self-Defence Against Non-State Terrorist Actors”, pp. 154-155. 459 John Roberts: “Turkey’s invasion of Northern Iraq”, p. 59. 460 UN Doc. S/1995/605; It should also be noted that the principle of self-preservation was one that the ICJ acknowledged in the Legailty of Nucelar Weapons advisory opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226 para. 96. 457
- 101 -