The question of the relationship between the breach of an international treaty and the use of force is a question that is generally not considered controversial, considering that contemporary international law leaves no room for invoking a treaty breach as an independent legal ground for the use of force. This is established by examining the regime governing the prohibition of the use of force and the threat of using force in international law, the exceptions to that prohibition, as well as by considering the consequences of a violation of the rules of international treaty treaties and the rules on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts. The research demonstrates the manner in which invoking a breach of international treaties is utilized in the argumentation of both States and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). On the one hand, States do not invoke a treaty breach as an independent legal ground for the use of force but it is commonly used in practice as an argumentative element used to further substantiate the ground for the use of force; as a rule, it is the right to self-defense as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. On the other hand, the UNSC may explicitly or indirectly invoke treaty breaches within its argumentation when adopting resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which authorize all necessary measures; thus, they actually authorize the use of force as the second exception to the general prohibition on the use of force. The subject matter of the analysis in this paper includes the doctrinal debate between extensive and restrictive interpretation of the right to self-defense in terms of the question of whether a breach of an international treaty can serve as a trigger for activating the right to self-defense.
Kristian Kovač (Thu,) studied this question.