Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  84 / 536 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 84 / 536 Next Page
Page Background

70

JOSEF MRÁZEK

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ

Libyan territory.

71

Tom Ruys mentioned as being among cases of “forcible protection”

e.g. the use of force by the US in the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983)

and Panama.

72

a legitime question may arise as to what is then in fact the difference

from humanitarian intervention? It is suggested that one distinguish between

“forcible hostage rescues” and “non- combat evacuation operations”. The legal

justifications of both these actions with regard to the UN principles remain a matter

of controversy, despite some successful “rescue operations” in the past. No treaty

or customary law allowing force to protect or rescue nationals abroad exists so far.

These actions have often provoked a widespread condemnation by the international

community. On the other hand, there is an opinion supporting “forcible protection”

as an internationally evolving practice.

5.2 Consent

Sometimes consent of government is considered to be legal basis for foreign armed

forces to enter the territory of given state. The ILA Report states that if consent to

the deployment of military personnel is validly given, there is no use of force against

the host state. In this context, it is possible to reply that international law does not

know the right to intervene on invitation. The ICJ confirmed that there is no right

for states to intervene directly or indirectly with or without armed force in support

of an “international position in another state.”

73

On the other hand, outside military

support of the “ruling regime” may violate democratic principles of government

and civil society. Armed actions upon invitation by the

de iure

government to

use force against “rebels” during an armed conflict are controversial and would be

mostly condemned by the majority of states. This is probably not valid in case of

“terrorism”. There is also room for a different interpretation of this invitation. It is

possible to mention the invitation of president Beriska in March 1997 sent to the

European states to restore order in Albania.

74

External suppression of a country’s

opposition may negatively affect the international legitimacy of a government and

rule of law principles in general. Foreign involvement may also instigate or influence

internal conflicts and eliminate a legitime struggle of people for self-determination.

The ILA Report stipulates that “it is generally prohibited to “forcibly” intervene

on behalf of a rebel movement.”

75

State practice indicates that assistance by states

to various rebel or insurgent groups not only by provision of arms and training of

forces but also by provision of non-lethal equipment and supplies is an everyday

reality. Even a direct military involvement of foreign forces in internal conflicts is

not excluded. The governmental consent for entrance of foreign forces during an

71

Supra note 69, p. 9.

72

Supra note 71, p. 233.

73

ICJ Reports, supra note 65, pp. 14, 126, 206.

74

Supra note 69, p. 58.

75

Supra note 1, p. 22.