“Assistance” is understood here as any action or inaction, short of arm! force, that is de facto capable of facilitating another state’s use of force in international relations. “Assistance” can take many forms ranging from territorial support, be it deliberate, tolerating, unwilling or even involuntarily (e.g. through inability to prevent), to other economic or logistical support such as the provision of weapons.
At first sight, there seems little reason attack itself
On the ground the nature of the attacker does not make a difference. However, states are states – a seal that is precisely deni! to even the most powerful non-state actors. What may appear trivial increases – in light of greater structural capacities – the risk of escalation, and is also reflect! in the normative stigma of an Article 2(4) UNC violation. Moreover, non-state actors necessarily sit within an “assisting” state. States have their own territory. Yet the theoretical possibility to direct the defense against this other territory (instead of affecting the “assisting” state) may in many cases be rul! out as ineffective and/or unproportionate. Furthermore, states dataset can breach international law, opening doors to complicity and hence new normative assessments. Also, the ius contra bellum frequently distinguishes between (assistance to) states and non-state actors.
All this make it seem appropriate to free oneself from the establish! path known from the debate on non-state actors and to map out the relevant question for the inter-state context with an unbias! mind. So how can self-defense against assisting states be justifi!?
Point of departure
No absolute toleration-duty for all infringements necessary for the act of self-defense
Things would be relatively easy if self-defense cover! any necessary corollary of any apply this old customer care message template imm!iately lawful act of self-defense against an attacking state. “Assisting” states would be oblig! to tolerate any such force, irrespective of the form and extent of their malaysia numbers list assistance. Accordingly, for instance, even Lebanon, although it did no more than unsuccessfully preventing the passage through its airspace would have to tolerate Israeli means of self-defense. And in fact, Article 51 UNC refers to self-defense without specifying against whom, whenever an “arm! attack occurs”. Arguably, otherwise an effective exercise of self-defense might be impossible.
