5cjxburmr

The consent of the territorial State, however, is not necessary when the U.N. SecurityCouncil has authorized the military operations. 213In addition, the United States has expressed the view that consent is not required whenthe territorial State is unwilling or unable to prevent its territory from being used by non-Statearmed groups as a base for launching attacks. 214 Other States have also expressed this view. 215INTERNATIONAL LAW 575, 577 (“Third: there is nothing in the wording of the 2001 AUMF or its legislative historythat restricts this statutory authority to the ‘hot’ battlefields of Afghanistan. … The legal point is important because,in fact, over the last 10 years al Qaeda has not only become more decentralized, it has also, for the most part,migrated away from Afghanistan to other places where it can find safe haven. However, this legal conclusion toohas its limits. It should not be interpreted to mean that we believe we are in any ‘Global War on Terror,’ or that wecan use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect for astate’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important limits on our ability to act unilaterally, and on the way inwhich we can use force in foreign territories.”); Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Address atthe Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: The Obama Administration and InternationalLaw Mar. 25, 2010, 2010 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 717-18 (“As recent eventshave shown, al-Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us.Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and theresponsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons suchas high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks. … Of course, whether a particular individual will betargeted in a particular location will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to theimminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those statesto suppress the threat the target poses.”).212 Daniel Bethlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent orActual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, 106 AJIL 1, 7 (2012) (“Subject to the following paragraphs, a state maynot take armed action in self-defense against a nonstate actor in the territory or within the jurisdiction of anotherstate (‘the third state’) without the consent of that state. The requirement for consent does not operate incircumstances in which there is an applicable resolution of the UN Security Council authorizing the use of armedforce under Chapter VII of the Charter or other relevant and applicable legal provision of similar effect.”).213 Daniel Bethlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent orActual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, 106 AJIL 1, 7 (2012) (“The requirement for consent does not operate incircumstances in which there is an applicable resolution of the UN Security Council authorizing the use of armedforce under Chapter VII of the Charter or other relevant and applicable legal provision of similar effect.”). Refer to§ 1.11.4.2 (Use of Force Authorized by the U.N. Security Council Acting Under Chapter VII of the Charter of theUnited Nations).214 See, e.g., Samantha J. Power, Letter dated 23 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the UnitedStates of America to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. S/2014/695 (Sept. 23, 2014)(“ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria are a threat not only to Iraq, but also to many other countries, including theUnited States and our partners in the region and beyond. States must be able to defend themselves, in accordancewith the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of theUnited Nations, when, as is the case here, the government of the State where the threat is located is unwilling orunable to prevent the use of its territory for such attacks. The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will notconfront these safe havens effectively itself.”); John B. Bellinger, III, Department of State Legal Adviser, LegalIssues in the War on Terrorism, Oct. 31, 2006, 2006 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW1104, 1109-10 (“Let me be very clear here: I am not suggesting that, because we remain in a state of armed conflictwith al Qaida, the United States is free to use military force against al Qaida in any state where an al Qaida terroristmay seek shelter. The U.S. military does not plan to shoot terrorists on the streets of London. As a practical matter,though, a state must be responsible for preventing terrorists from using its territory as a base for launching attacks.And, as a legal matter, where a state is unwilling or unable to do so, it may be lawful for the targeted state to usemilitary force in self-defense to address that threat.”); Abraham Sofaer, The Sixth Annual Waldemar A. Solf Lecturein International Law: Terrorism, the Law, and the National Defense, 126 MILITARY LAW REVIEW 89, 108 (1989)1049