A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SELF-DEFENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

ABSTRACT: The present dissertation utilises the doctrinal research method to evaluate the theory of Self defence, which is considered a fundamental tenet of International law and serves as one of the exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force. This dissertation focuses on the examination of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which pertains to the legal provision of the right to self-defense within the realm of International law. The dissertation argues that the provisions outlined in Article 51 have sparked debates among experts specialising in the field of International law. The aforementioned controversies have had the tendency to obfuscate the extent of self-defense within the realm of International law. The primary concern of this study pertains to the lack of clarity regarding the impact of Article 51 on the notion of anticipatory self-defense within the framework of Customary International Law. The issue at hand has been rendered intricate due to the inclusion of the terms "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" and "armed attack" under Article 51. The topic at hand pertains to whether international law imposes an obligation on a State to refrain from taking any action when it becomes the intended recipient of an imminent attack. The primary aim of this dissertation is to analyse the correlation between Article 51 and the principles of customary International Law, as well as the specific conditions under which the exercise of the right to self-defense is permissible. The dissertation presents certain findings by asserting that the philosophy of preemptive self-defense is inconsistent with the provisions outlined in Articles 2(4) and 51 of the Charter, which explicitly forbid the unilateral employment of force. Moreover, it is worth noting that Article 51 and customary international law offer distinct regulations pertaining to the implementation of the right to self-defense.The author contends that a prompt revision of Article 51 is imperative in order to align it with contemporary global security problems. The precise definition of the term 'armed attack' must to be clearly delineated, while the inclusion of the idea of collective self-defense in Article 51 should be eliminated.