A similar determination by Nato parties could perhaps be made in the case of France in order to bolster the case for other countries to exercise the right of collective self-defence on France’s behalf. France could also still argue that it is exercising individual self defence in any actions it takes against Isis.
But the problem remains, for both collective and individual self-defence, that Isis is not technically considered a state. In previous international law decisions involving actions against a non-state, the exercise of this right of self-defence has not been considered lawful.
This occurred most significantly in a landmark International Court of Justice decision against Israel’s construction of a security wall in Palestine. The court found that self-defence could not be relied upon because it could only be invoked against states.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member