5cjxburmr

condemnation under international law of certain types of private acts of hostility (such as piracyor terrorism) outside the context of patriotic resistance against an enemy State duringinternational armed conflict. 1891.11.1.2 The Means Must Be Proportionate to the Just Cause (Proportionality –Jus ad Bellum). Proportionality involves a weighing of the contemplated actions with thejustification for taking action. 190 For example, the proportionality of the measures taken in selfdefenseis to be judged according to the nature of the threat being addressed. 191 Force may beused in self-defense, but only to the extent that it is required to repel the armed attack and torestore the security of the party attacked. 192 As an illustration, assessing the proportionality ofmeasures taken in self-defense may involve considerations of whether an actual or imminentattack is part of an ongoing pattern of attacks or what force is reasonably necessary to discouragefuture armed attacks or threats thereof. 193The jus ad bellum criterion of proportionality is different from the jus in bello rule ofproportionality in conducting attacks. 194 These concepts should not be confused with oneanother. 195189 Refer to § 4.18.5 (Private Persons Who Engage in Hostilities and the Law of War).190 Refer to § 2.4 (Proportionality).191 William H. Taft IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, Self-Defense and the Oil Platforms Decision, 29 YALEJOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 295, 305-06 (2004) (“There is no requirement in international law that a Stateexercising its right of self-defense must use the same degree or type of force used by the attacking State in its mostrecent attack. Rather, the proportionality of the measures taken in self-defense is to be judged according to thenature of the threat being addressed… . A proper assessment of the proportionality of a defensive use of forcewould require looking not only at the immediately preceding armed attack, but also at whether it was part of anongoing series of attacks, what steps were already taken to deter future attacks, and what force could reasonably bejudged to be needed to successfully deter future attacks.”).192 Counter-memorial and Counter-claim Submitted by the United States of America, International Court of Justice,Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) 141 (4.31) (Jun. 23, 1997) (“Actions in self-defense must beproportionate. Force can be used in self-defense, but only to the extent that it is required to repel the armed attackand to restore the security of the party attacked.”).193 Herbert S. Okun, Letter Dated 14 April 1986 from the Acting Permanent Representative of the United States ofAmerica to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/17990 (Apr. 14,1986) (“The United States objective was to destroy facilities used to carry out Libya’s hostile policy of internationalterrorism and to discourage Libyan terrorist attacks in the future. These facilities constituted essential elementswhich have enabled Libyan agents to carry out deadly missions against U.S. installations and innocentindividuals.”); Madeleine Albright, Letter Dated 26 June 1993 from the Permanent Representative of the UnitedStates of America to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/26003 (Jun.26, 1993) (“Accordingly, as a last resort, the United States has decided that it is necessary to respond to theattempted attack and the threat of further attacks by striking at an Iraqi military and intelligence target that isinvolved in such attacks. … It is the sincere hope of the United States Government that such limited andproportionate action may frustrate future unlawful actions on the part of the Government of Iraq and discourage orpreempt such activities.”).194 Refer to § 5.12 (Proportionality in Conducting Attacks).195 Refer to § 3.5.1 (General Distinction Between Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum).41