Re-Assessing the Use of Indirect Force as a Form of Self-Defence

This chapter examines whether states have a right to use indirect force as a form of self-defence and outlines the legal boundaries for regulating such claims. It notes that there are two extreme viewpoints regarding force in relation to the customary right of self-defence, which influence how states and scholars interpret the regulation of indirect force. On one side is the ICJ’s high threshold thesis, while on the other is the low threshold thesis, mainly promoted by powerful Western states. Given the limited state practice on the use of indirect force for self-defence, this chapter considers three specific but relevant cases—namely, Nicaragua, Armed Activities, and the recent Syria cases—that reveal some underlying issues with the concept of using indirect force in the context of self-defence. The chapter aims to demonstrate the contradictions within these doctrines and how they reflect interventionist behaviour by powerful states, often to the detriment of weaker, especially third-world, states. It argues that the inadequate legal scrutiny of this phenomenon is best understood as a symptom of a broader problem rooted in both traditional and modern frameworks concerning the conditions for self-defence.