Chapter IV State Practice Following World War II, 1945-1990 A paper by George K. Walker * Comments by L. C. Green Walker 121 State Practice Following World War II, 1945-1990 I. Introduction At least ten armed conflicts at sea since W orld War II have involved targeting issues concerning enemy merchant shipping and neutral vessels that have acquired enemy character: the Korean conflict of 1950-53 and naval actions connected with the civil war in China, 1949-58; the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948-57, 1967, 1973 and 1982; the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971; the Vietnam War, with principal U.S. forces involvement between 1962 and 1973; the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982; and, most importandy, the Iran-Iraq Tanker War of 1980-88. There was no global war similar to the experiences of World Wars I and II; in all cases the arenas of attack were relatively localized. However, to some participants the conflict was total, e.g., the Tanker War as to the belligerents, Iran and Iraq; to neutral bystanders, involved to a greater or lesser degree (e.g. the United States in the Tanker War), the conflict was only a regional, second or third level affair. Although these conflicts overlapped each other in point of beginning and duration, they may be analyzed conveniendy in the sequence listed above. This chapter will also attempt to interweave other major sources of state practice - e.g., treaties,l in some cases like UNCLOS,2 not yet in force - that may have impact on this area, albeit tangentially, in the future. It might be noted that other sources of state practice or custom, the theme of this chapter, may be found in [D]iplomatic correspondence, policy statements, press releases, the opinions of official legal advisers, official manuals on legal questions, e.g. manuals of military law, executive decisions and practices, orders to naval forces, etc., comments by governments on drafts produced by the International Law Commission; state legislation, international and national judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, and resolutions relating to legal questions in the United Nations General Assembly. Obviously the value of these sources varies and such depends on the circumstan- ces. 3 Most modem military manuals, e.g., NWP 9A, contain a "disclaimer clause," which says that although the publications cannot be considered as binding on courts, "their contents may possess evidentiary value in matters relating to U.S. custom and practice. ,,4 And besides customary and treaty sources, there may be general principles of law, authoritative treatises, other research of competent scholars, court decisions, or perhaps resolutions of international organizations, 122 Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping that may impact the law-defining process.5 Some of these sources, e.g., actions of international organizations, may appear for the first time in the time frame of this analysis, 1945-90, while others have been sources, perhaps subsidiary to custom, treaties and general principles, for a long time.6 The general format ofthis chapter is analysis, on a general time line when the conflict occurred, grouping adversaries where successive conflicts have occurred, e.g., Korea, 1950-53, and naval activity connected with the Chinese civil war, followed by the 1948-1957, 1967, 1973, and 1982 Arab-Israeli conflicts, etc. Within each conflict, or set of conflicts, state practice will be analyzed first. This will be followed by other primary sources developed during the time frame, e.g., treaties binding on the parties, and then by other developments in international law - e.g., treaties that would apply to future wars at sea, treaties not related to armed conflict but whose principles may be arguably applicable in the future, and the research results ofmajor commentators. While this has made for a longer chapter, it is hoped (and submitted) that the comprehensive approach may be more useful than examination of state practice in isolation from other sources. This chapter is limited to its topic. Full analysis of issues involving the results of attacks on truly neutral merchant shipping, which are strictly prohibited? attacks on enemy warships or naval auxiliaries, which are permitted;8 attacks on warships of neutrals, which are prohibited;9 and attacks on certain protected vessels, e.g., hospital ships, which are prohibited;10 are not always given full analysis. For example, specific humanitarian law rules that flow from such attacks may be discussed only tangentially, e.g., the particular rules for notification of casualties. The same is true for claims concerning accidental attacks in peacetime, or sea-air warfare, such as the Airbus incident during the Tanker War. The chapter confines itself to high seas situations. II. State Practice and Other Sources of International Law Since World War II The postwar era began with ratification of the U.N. Charter, whose articles 51 and 52 recognize the inherent right ofindividual and collective self-defense, and the right to establish regional arrangements or agencies to deal with matters relating to the maintenance ofinternational peace and security as appropriate for regional action. Article 2(4) of the Charter declares that all U.N. members shall refrain from the threat, or use, offorce against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(3) states the correlative principle that U.N. members must settle international disputes by peaceful means so that "interna­ tional peace and security, and justice, are not endangered." There is, of course, an inherent tension between the principles ofArticles 2(3) and 2(4) and Articles 51 and 52, in that the use offorce in self-defense, perhaps through an Article 52 agency, will almost invariably involve the territorial integrity or political Walker 123 independence of a state to which the defensive response is directed. Settlement by peaceful means is the polar opposite to the threat or use of force permitted under the principles of self-defense. However, Article 2(3)'s peaceful means provision is qualified by the paramountcy of international peace and security, and the order of listing of Purposes of the United Nations, as well as the content of subsequent Charter provisions, supports the view that the maintenance ofpeace and security is "the primary purpose ofthe Organization and takes priority over other purposes."l1 Since the "inherent right of self-defense" is preserved under article 51 in the absence of action by the Security Council, and is a correlative of actions the Council might take,12 the right of self-defense is part of the corrective mechanisms (albeit through self-help) the Charter contemplates. Besides the preservation ofthe right ofself-defense, the Charter also provides, in Chapter VI, for pacific settlement of disputes, including investigations, recommendations and decisions by the Security Council of disputes "likely" to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.13 The Charter also gives the Security Council, in Chapter VII, authority to act to deal with threats to the peace, breaches ofthe peace, or acts ofaggression. Nonforce actions that the Council may direct include "complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of... sea, air and other means ofcommunications "under Article 41. Article 42 gives the Council the option of deciding on force, including "demonstration, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces ofMembers ...." (Chapter VII also includes Article 51, with its statement of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.1'1 Although the principal institution for implementing Council action, the Military Staff Com­ mittee, withered during the Cold War,lS U.N. Members remain liable to obey the Council's "decisions,,,16 which have been issued only rarely because of that Cold War. Thus one of the primary foci for enforcement of states' rights under international law for 1945-90 has been self-help, through claims ofself-defense, anticipatory self-defense, nonforce reprisal and retorsion. Self-defense has two elements, necessity and proportionality, and for U.S. practice includes the right of anticipatory self-defense, perhaps on a global scale, involving use of armed force where there is a clear necessity that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no reasonable choice ofpeaceful means. ,,17 The basic self-defense principles, tersely articulated in the Charter in 1945 and developed through state practice since then, might come into play at the beginning of any armed conflict where enemy merchant ships are at sea or are being convoyed by enemy warships, or situations might develop during armed conflict involving neutral vessels. Two views have developed as to the scope of self-defense after ratification of the Charter. The U.S. position has been that a parallel customary right of self-defense exists alongside Article 51,18 while others have argued that the Charter comprehends the scope ofthe right, i.e., that the right to self-defense occurs only when there is an armed attack.19 And, as will be seen, the peacetime 124 Targeting Enemy Merchant Shipping law ofthe sea declares that merchant ships have the nationality ofthe state whose flag they fly, so long as there is a "genuine and effective link." between the flag state and the vesse1.20 Thus a violation of Charter Article 2(4) might be claimed if there is an unwarranted attack on a neutral merchant ship as much as if a battleship bombarded a neutral coast or an army invaded neutral territory?1 Self-defense, whether anticipatory or in response to an attack, can be asserted in several contexts, e.g., unit self-defense, where a particular ship, aircraft or group of units (e.g., a carrier battlegroup) responds to use, or threat of use, of force; national self-defense, where other forces, citizens or territory are involved.22 Those who would deny validity to the u.S.