Abstract
The forcible protection of one states’ own nationals on another state’s territory is
one which stretches the boundaries of the broader, inherent right of self-defence
available to states under international law. Known as the ‘protection of nationals
abroad’ this doctrine is the one that remains at best, highly controversial. This
article examines the lawfulness of action taken by British forces when they
rescued and evacuated British nationals prior to Libya descending into civil
war. It also considers the extent to which action by British forces fits within the
highly controversial paradigm of ‘protection of nationals abroad’. This article
suggests that the paradigm operates along a continuum. Certain instances of
forcible protection are clearly unlawful yet are ‘tolerated’ by the international
community. Meanwhile other means of forcible protection are both unlawful and
intolerable.
one which stretches the boundaries of the broader, inherent right of self-defence
available to states under international law. Known as the ‘protection of nationals
abroad’ this doctrine is the one that remains at best, highly controversial. This
article examines the lawfulness of action taken by British forces when they
rescued and evacuated British nationals prior to Libya descending into civil
war. It also considers the extent to which action by British forces fits within the
highly controversial paradigm of ‘protection of nationals abroad’. This article
suggests that the paradigm operates along a continuum. Certain instances of
forcible protection are clearly unlawful yet are ‘tolerated’ by the international
community. Meanwhile other means of forcible protection are both unlawful and
intolerable.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 541-554 |
| Number of pages | 13 |
| Journal | Journal of Conflict and Security Law |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 1 Dec 2011 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2 Jan 2012 |
| Externally published | Yes |