The Caroling Blood Case: How does a country exercise its right to self-defense?

We all know that a country that exists in the world will face various challenges, such as war. The dangers of war are well known. Even if you haven't experienced it, look back at history, think about World War I and World War II, think about the Verdun meat grinder and the Nanjing Massacre. You can also feel the violent temper. That being the case, when the country is facing the danger of foreign enemies invading or possibly being dragged into war, it seems reasonable to rise up against it or to extinguish a flame that might ignite the war.

However, another problem is that since the birth of international law, the behavior of each country has been strictly restrained. If a country launches a war for resistance, or in order to put out a flame that may cause war, it will harm the interests of other countries and even invade. What about the territory of the country?

In view of this, it becomes difficult to grasp the scale between defending national interests and observing international law.

01. Self-defense rights

The right to self-defense, also known as self-insurance, is one of the most important rights of a country. In short, the right to self-defense means that a country has the right and obligation to defend its existence and independence - it seems to be a natural right. In order to achieve this goal, a country can establish an army, strengthen its national defense to enhance its self-protection ability; it can also resist when it is under aggression; it can also conclude an offensive and defensive alliance with other countries during the turbulent years, or non-aggression of the treaty to maintain The wartime interests of the country.

02. The classic case of exercising the right to self-defense - the Caroline case

In 1837, as a rebellion in Canada as a British colony, the rebels hired the Caroline for further operations and used the ship to transport weapons from the United States along the Niagara River to Canada. However, the news was captured by the Canadian government, so the Canadian government sent a British army to intercept the Garolin ship, confiscated the ship's weapons, and burned the ship. During the interception process, the British army and the crew clash and killed two Americans.

In response, the US government protested, and the British responded that this was the right to self-defense that must be exercised to prevent a larger war. Because the incident was sudden, it was not possible to ask the United States for help. Subsequently, there was a series of slaps in the double-reverse, and finally a consensus was reached on one thing - when necessary, the right to self-defense could be exercised by force. This consensus has also gradually been absorbed by international law.

03. Use of force to exercise the right to self-defense

Of course, although it can be put into force, a country cannot exercise the right to self-defense without restriction, or invade the facts of other countries under the name of self-defense, otherwise it will violate the original intention of the existence of the right to self-defense. Then, under what circumstances can a country exercise its right to self-defense, and what is the scale of exercising its right to self-defense?

After the Caroline case, the US Secretary of State outlined the restrictions on the exercise of the right to self-defense by force:

"These exceptions (forces) should limit the need for self-defense to be urgent, overriding and without other means to choose and no time to think carefully."

Later, this kind of thinking was roughly abstracted into two conditions of self-defense by force: First, in the self-defense of force, there is no time to ask the other party for the action that they will take, or after the request, but the other party has no response or no actual action; Second, self-defense by force cannot exceed the absolute necessary limit.

It can be seen that although the exercise of the right to self-defense by force has become an act permitted by international law, there are still limitations and scales for such fierce acts. Of course, although international law makes written explanations for such restrictions and scales, specific actions and compliance, It is still the self-control and supervision of the countries that exercise self-defense.