55 / 536
41
CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ
ISLAMIC STATE, AN ACTOR THREATENING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
states that these terrorist attacks should not be sporadic, isolated attacks, but rather
they should be systematic in character. They base their view on the fact that such
attacks are of such extent and intensity that they are comparable to armed attacks
of a state. Ronzitti
52
writes in relation to the US air strikes in Syria that the right
to self-defence is initiated in case of an armed attack of a state and /or an attack of
a non-state actor
–
that is, also in case of an attack by the combatants of the Islamic
state from their bases in Syria. On the other hand, some authors
53
refer to advisory
opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Israeli West Bank of 2004,
according to which
Article 51 of the Charter recognizes the right to self-defence in case
of an armed attack of one state against the other state.
These authors understand the
advisory opinion as a
confirmation
of the fact that self-defence is possible
only among
states
. There are also contradictory opinions which claim that the Court did not say
that that self-defence is possible only in case of an armed attack of one state against
the other.
54
The
authors of this paper
share this second view. It is possible to remark
that the International Court of Justice also stated in its advisory opinion that Israel
exercises control over the occupied Palestinian territory and that the source of threats
which justify the construction of the wall is
within and not outside that territory
.
It is therefore a different situation from the UN Security Council resolutions
No. 1368/2001 and 1373/2001, which were adopted after the terrorist attacks
in the USA in 2001. Israel therefore cannot refer to these resolutions as reasons for
the exercise of the right to self-defence.
55
The conclusions of the International Court
of Justice can therefore rather be interpreted as if the Court wanted to express the
opinion that for the exercise of the right to self-defence it is necessary the armed
attack be from outside. Reference to the anti-terrorist resolution does not exclude the
possibility of an armed attack from non-state actors.
The consideration about self-defence in case of an attack by non-state actors is therefore
ambiguous. The main issue is the problematic character of an intervention against such
actors on the territory of a foreign state which
does not agree
with the intervention.
Military interventions in Syria are conducted by only one side, by Russia. These are
air strikes against the Islamic state which started at the end of September 2015. Russian
president Putin announced that this constitutes
Russian help
in the fight against
Islamists which was
demanded
by Syrian president Assad, with whose terrestrial forces
these strikes will be coordinated.
56
Assad’s administration simultaneously announced
52
RONZITTI, Natalino.The Intervention against the Islamic State under International Law.
International
Relations and Security Network (ISN)
7 November 2014.
53
ANTONOPOULOS, C. cited in: BÍLKOVÁ, Veronika.
Boj proti terorismu z pohledu ochrany lidských
práv.
Plzeň: Vydavatelství a nakladatelství A. Čeněk, 2014, p. 62.
54
Ibid
.
55
ICJ. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory
Opinion, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports, 2004, 2004, par. 139.
56
Rusové bombardují islamisty.
Právo
1. 10. 2015.