5cjxburmr

1.11.5.3 Use of Force to Protect Nationals Abroad. A State’s right to use force inself-defense may be understood to include the right to use force to protect its nationals abroad. 232The United States has taken action to protect U.S. nationals abroad when the government of theterritory in which they are located was unwilling or unable to protect them. 233 A State need notawait actual violence against its nationals before taking such action if an attack against them isimminent. 2341.11.5.4 Right of Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors. The inherent right ofself-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, applies in response toany “armed attack,” not just attacks that originate with States. 235 As with any other exercise oftheir eventual response would likely be much greater, making it more difficult to prevent disputes from escalatinginto full-scale military conflicts.”).231 See, e.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits,Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, 101 (191) (“As regards certain particular aspects of the principle in question, it will benecessary to distinguish the most grave forms of the use of force (those constituting an armed attack) from other lessgrave forms.”); id. at 126-27 (247) (“So far as regards the allegations of supply of arms by Nicaragua to the armedopposition in El Salvador, the Court has indicated that while the concept of an armed attack includes the despatch byone State of armed bands into the territory of another State, the supply of arms and other support to such bandscannot be equated with armed attack. Nevertheless, such activities may well constitute a breach of the principle ofthe non-use of force and an intervention in the internal affairs of a State, that is, a form of conduct which is certainlywrongful, but is of lesser gravity than an armed attack.”).232 Ambassador William Scranton, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Statement in the U.N. SecurityCouncil regarding Israeli action at Entebbe, Jul. 12, 1976, 1976 DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE ININTERNATIONAL LAW 150 (“[T]here is a well-established right to use limited force for the protection of one’s ownnationals from an imminent threat of injury or death in a situation where the State in whose territory they are locatedeither is unwilling or unable to protect them. The right, flowing from the right of self defense, is limited to such useof force as is necessary and appropriate to protect threatened nationals from injury.”).233 For example, Jimmy Carter, Letter to Thomas P. O’Neal, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representatives, andWarren G. Magnuson, President pro tempore of the Senate regarding the rescue attempt for American hostages inIran, Apr. 26, 1980, 1980-I PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 779 (“In carrying out this operation [to rescue theAmerican hostages in the U.S. embassy in Tehran] the United States was acting wholly within its right, inaccordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to protect and rescue its citizens where the government ofthe territory in which they are located is unwilling or unable to protect them.”).234 Kenneth W. Dam, Deputy Secretary of State, Statement before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Nov. 2,1983, reprinted in 78 AJIL 200, 203-04 (1984) (“U.S. actions have been based on three legal grounds: … Third,U.S. action to secure and evacuate endangered U.S. citizens on the island was undertaken in accordance with wellestablishedprinciples of international law regarding the protection of one’s nationals. That the circumstanceswarranted this action has been amply documented by the returning students themselves. There is absolutely norequirement of international law that compelled the United States to await further deterioration of the situation thatwould have jeopardized a successful operation. Nor was the United States required to await actual violence againstU.S. citizens before rescuing them from the anarchic and threatening conditions the students have described.”).235 See, e.g., In re Guantanamo Bay Litigation, Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s DetentionAuthority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay, Misc. No. 08-442, 4 (D.D.C., Mar. 13, 2009) (“Underinternational law, nations lawfully can use military force in an armed conflict against irregular terrorist groups suchas al-Qaida. The United Nations Charter, for example, recognizes the inherent right of states to use force in selfdefense in response to any ‘armed attack,’ not just attacks that originate with states. United Nations Charter, art.51.”); U.S. Additional Response to the Request for Precautionary Measures—Detention of Enemy Combatants atGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jul. 15, 2002, 2002 DIGEST OF UNITEDSTATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1008, 1011-12 (“The terrorist attacks of September 11 were not ordinarycriminal acts. … The international community has clearly recognized the right of the United States and allied forces48