84 / 536
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.