Browsing by Author "Bennett, T.W."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Open Access
    South Africa's cross-border raids against alleged ANC bases in the neighbouring states: an international legal analysis
    (1987) Ferguson-Brown, Kevin W; Bennett, T.W.; Devine, D. J
    This thesis examines whether South Africa is legally entitled to use force in the form of cross-border raids against the neighbouring states in order to destroy alleged ANC bases in these states. Chapter 1 provides a factual account of those cross-border raids in which South Africa has officially acknowledged the participation of its security forces. I do not investigate the legality of those raids which South Africa has conducted against SWAPO bases in Angola because this would involve the complex issue of the legal status of Namibia which falls outside the scope of this thesis. The main basis for the entitlement to use force in international law, the right of self-defence (provided for in Article 51 of the UN Charter) is analysed in Chapter 2 and then applied to South Africa's conduct in Chapter 5. Because self-defence is not permitted against a lawful use of force, Chapters 3 and 4 examine the legality of the ANC's armed struggle and whether the neighbouring states violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter if (or when) they permit ANC guerillas to use their territories for infiltration into South Africa. Although I argue that the ANC and the neighbouring states are legally entitled to use force against the Republic and, therefore, South Africa cannot avail itself of the right of self-defence, I none the less consider the position were South Africa subjected to an unlawful use of force. Even so, I conclude that South Africa's cross-border raids cannot be justified in terms of Article 51 because they are neither the last resort nor effective in removing the danger of ANC violence and, therefore, unnecessary. Lastly, the analysis in Chapter 1 of the cross-border raids in the context of South Africa's regional policy is used to support my rejection of South Africa's argument that its raids are acts of self-defence because the role that these raids play in the Republic's destabilization of the region suggests that they are fashioned by goals other than self-defence and, consequently, South Africa does not satisfy the requirement of good faith for the legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence. In addition I discuss other bases which have been raised to legally justify the raids (namely, the rights of necessity and hot pursuit) and conclude that South Africa's cross-border raids are contrary to international law.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    The American strategy of preemptive war and international law
    (2004) van Selle, Birgit; Bennett, T.W.
    The government of the United States has proven its determination to embark on a war against Iraq. U.S. officials, citing United Nations Security Council resolutions, insisted that the United States had the authority for the contemplated attack. While it might· have preferred to do so on the basis of an authorization by the United Nations Security Council, it emphasized from the outset that it would also act without consent of the Security Council. Representatives of other permanent members of the Security Council believed otherwise; that no resolution of the Security Council authorized U.S. armed action without its approval and that acting without consent of the Security Council constitutes a breach of international law. In its National Security Strategy, for instance, the United States declared, that it was prepared to engage in a preemptive war without Security Council authorization both during the current Iraq crisis and as a general rule. This paper addresses issues of international law raised by this unilateral approach. It concludes. that a unilateral war of preemption poses a violation of international law and that its legalization would not be desirable.