As the title denotes, the present article focusses on the application of ius contra bellum rules ; in other word, the author will examine States' and non-State actors' conducts during summer 2006 events through the sole spectrum of rules relating to the right to the use of force in intern national relations, formerly known as the right to wage war. Thus, this article will not deal with the body of rules pertaining to the conduct of belligerents during armed conflict, i.e. the ius in bellum. Therefore, special, yet not exclusive emphasis will be put on Israel's title to resort to armed force in order to guarantee its allegedly infringed rights. To this effect, the author will review different legal rules (and set of rules) which could validate Israel's conduct. On the other side, Lebanon's conduct in relation to Israel's claims and especially with regard to Hezbollah's activities will carefully be scrutinized in the light of public international law rules. In this framework, the question of States’ lawful reactions to non-State actors’ use of force will be thoroughly examined. Hence, in this respect, the article will assess not only ius contra bellum rules but also international law of State responsibility as well as the right to resort to forcible countermeasures and UN law (notably Security Council prerogatives under United Nations Charter Chapter VII). In conclusion, the author aims to determine Israel, Lebanon (and Hezbollah's) responsibility in the context of this chapter of the Middle East Question.
"The Lebanese crisis of summer 2006 In terms of jus contra bellum,"
Journal Sharia and Law: Vol. 2008
, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.uaeu.ac.ae/sharia_and_law/vol2008/iss36/6