5cjxburmr

It may be unnecessary for a belligerent State to seek consent when there is a strong,reasonable, and objective basis for concluding that the seeking of consent would be likely toundermine materially the effectiveness of the action against the non-State armed group (e.g.,reasons of disclosure, delay, incapacity to act) or would increase the risk of armed attack,vulnerability to future attacks, or other development that would give rise to an independentimperative to act in self-defense. 216(“The United States in fact supported the legality of a nation attacking a terrorist base from which attack on itscitizens are being launched, if the host country is either unwilling or unable to stop the terrorists from using itsterritory for that purpose.”).215 For example, Michael Grant, Letter dated 31 March 2015 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the PermanentMission of Canada to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2015/221(Mar. 31, 2015) (“ISIL also continues to pose a threat not only to Iraq, but also to Canada and Canadians, as well asto other countries in the region and beyond. In accordance with the inherent rights of individual and collective selfdefencereflected in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, States must be able to act in self-defence when thegovernment of the State where a threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent attacks emanating from itsterritory.”); Russian Federation President V.V. Putin, Statement of Sept. 11, 2002, annexed to Sergey Lavrov, Letterdated 11 September 2002 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nationsaddressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. S/2002/1012 (Sept. 11, 2002) (“The Russian Federation firmlyadheres to its international obligations and respects the sovereignty and integrity of other States, but it demands thesame attitude towards itself. If the Georgian leadership is unable to establish a security zone in the area of theGeorgian-Russian border, continues to ignore United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) of 28September 2001, and does not put an end to the bandit sorties and attacks on adjoining areas in the RussianFederation, we reserve the right to act in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which laysdown every Member State’s inalienable right of individual or collective self-defence. … None of this will benecessary, no measures or special operations will be needed if the Georgian leadership actually controls its ownterritory, carries out international obligations in combating international terrorism and prevents possible attacks byinternational terrorists from its territory against the territory of the Russian Federation.”); Hayati Güven, LetterDated 24 July 1995 from the Charge D’affaires A.I. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United NationsAddressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/1995/605 (Jul. 24, 1995) (“As Iraq has not beenable to exercise its authority over the northern part of its country since 1991 for reasons well known, Turkey cannotask the Government of Iraq to fulfil its obligation, under international law, to prevent the use of its territory for thestaging of terrorist acts against Turkey. Under these circumstances, Turkey’s resorting to legitimate measures whichare imperative to its own security cannot be regarded as a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty. No country could beexpected to stand idle when its own territorial integrity is incessantly threatened by blatant cross-border attacks of aterrorist organization based and operating from a neighbouring country, if that country is unable to put an end tosuch attacks. The recent operations of limited time and scope were carried out within this framework, as explainedto the world public.”); Statement of Mr. Blum, representative of Israel, in U.N. Doc. S/PV.2292 54-56 (“Membersof the [Security] Council need scarcely be reminded that under international law, if a State is unwilling or unable toprevent the use of its territory to attack another State, that latter state is entitled to take all necessary measures in itsown defence. The Government of Israel is in fact exercising the inherent right of self-defence enjoyed by everysovereign State, a right also preserved under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Israel’s response toPLO terror is what any self-respecting sovereign State would do in similar circumstances. I must stress that Israel’sactions are specifically directed against concentrations of PLO terrorists in Lebanon.”).216 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) (“In such circumstances, in addition to the precedingrequirements, there must also be a strong, reasonable, and objective basis for concluding that the seeking of consentwould be likely to materially undermine the effectiveness of action in self-defense, whether for reasons ofdisclosure, delay, incapacity to act, or otherwise, or would increase the risk of armed attack, vulnerability to futureattacks, or other development that would give rise to an independent imperative to act in self-defense.”).1050