Read on Twitter
1/8 Unsurprisingly, this post by Akande and @ATzanakopoulos is great. But so is the opposing view by @TomRuys_Law and @frsilvestre. That such authorities differ on the doctrine underlines the basic normative question: *should* there be a right to self-defense in such cases? https://twitter.com/ejiltalk/status/1328972537766809600
2/8 To answer this we need a theory on why states *should* have the right to act forcibly - ie to kill others and risk their own people - to recover territory once there is no longer an imminent threat to life imposed by the occupying state (no fighting is going on).
3/8 One argument is that the territory of the state is equivalent to a physical body. As long as it is held by others the state is suffering continuous harm comparable to a dismemberment of one's body. But this organic view is no longer popular and leads to reactionary results.
4/8 Another argument is from self-determination. Occupation attacks the S-D of the occupied population. The territorial state is entrusted to protect this interest even - and perhaps more - as time passes. But this is contingent. What if the population prefers the occupant?
5/8 A third argument views the continuous occupation as a conditional threat. On this view, the defender doesn't act forcibly against the occupation of territory per se, but against the anticipated forcible response by the occupant, should the it try to recover its rights.
6/8 But there's a whole debate whether it's justified to use force against conditional threats when the interest affected is merely territorial. Some argue that you can't kill and risk lives merely to recover an object (territory), regardless of the fact that you're threatened.
7/8 The last argument is rule-consequentialist. A rule that prohibits force to recover territory will encourage aggressors. But this argument permits killing and risking people *now* to achieve future, uncertain ends - which is very problematic in itself.
8/8 I think these normative questions explain at least some of the unease that we have with this problem.
bye
bye
