Valstybių prevencinė savigyna: teisiniai ir politiniai aspektai ; Preventive self-defence: legal and political aspects

Abstract

The paper attempts to prove that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) due to the absence of mutual agreement between its permanent members and frequent usage of veto right, sanctions the usage of preventive self-defence notably rarely. The problem then occurs: because of the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in sanctioning the usage of preventive self-defence, the states implement the preventive self-defence by themselves, in this way violating one of the main international law principles – refraining from threatening or using force principle. This situation encouraged some big states (permanent members of the UNSC) to foresee the possibility to use unilateral preventive self-defence in their military doctrines in this way ignoring international law. The current situation requires dealing with this issue either legalizing the usage of preventive self-defence or searching for the ways how to force the UNSC to implement its primary task – to maintain international peace and security. The goal of the paper – to reveal the issues of the states' usage of preventive self-defence emphasizing the Middle East region. The following objectives have been formulated for achieving the goal: 1. To discuss the concept of refraining from threatening or using force principle, the consolidation of this principle in contemporary law as well as analysis of exceptions. 2. To analyze the types of states' self-defence and find Lithuanian equivalents to English terms of states' self-defence types: preemptive and preventive self-defence. 3. To analyze the demand and opportunities to legalize the unilateral usage of states' preventive self-defence. 4. To analyze the potential usage of preventive self-defence towards Iran. The object of this paper – the usage of the states' preventive self-defence. While determining the research boundaries, the object of the research has been stated - the possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran. The following issues have been addressed in the paper – should the right to use preventive self-defence be stated in the international law even in the case if UNSC would not sanction the usage of preventive military measures? The answer to the question is negative. It is feared that the legalizing of preventive self-defence could have irrecoverable consequences because each state would use preventive self-defence at own discretion and all this would not contribute to the UN efforts to ensure peace and security in the world. It is recommended to deal with the current situation not by legalizing preventive self-defence but by increasing the UNSC efficiency in analyzing and sanctioning the usage of preventive force. Three institutional models that enable to increase the efficiency of the UNSC directly and indirectly while dealing with the usage of preventive force issues and sanctioning it are analyzed in the paper. The possible usage of Israel's preventive self-defence towards Iran was analyzed during the survey. It was assessed whether there were assumptions for Israel to attack Iran and if Israel will eventually attack Iran despite the fact that this kind of attack would be unlawful according to the international law. The historical comparative method was used while answering the question. The bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 was analyzed and Iraq's nuclear programme assessed. The author claims that all assumptions for Israel to attack Iran do exist – Israel suspects that Iran is making nuclear weapon and that it will be used against Israel. At present Israel is deterred from attacking only because of the USA position and the absence of the precise data regarding Iran nuclear objects. In the course of the time the USA position can change and the data (reasoned or not) regarding Iran nuclear objects' location can occur. If it happens, in this case it is possible that Israel will decide to attack Iran.