Use of force in law enforcement and policy

¶ … force has been adopted and vilified in various circumstances by commentators, states, and international organizations. In most cases, the states determine the appropriate situations with which the use of force is applied on a case-by-case basis and how to apply it. For example, one of the fundamental provisions in the United Nations charter states that all members shall avoid from the threat or use of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state in their international relations. States have used force when they are at war, on the brink of war, for political and economic potshots, and when one state is unaware of the clandestine activities of another state. The application of the use of force has mainly been characterized by the invoking of measures that have devastating impacts on the target nation. However, under contemporary international law, one of the major concerns that have risen is the legal and illegal uses of force.

Types of Legal Uses of Force:

The legitimacy of the use of force has continued to be an issue of increased concerns under the contemporary international law. There are various types of legal uses of forces including the following & #8230;

Political Struggles:

In the recent past, the use of force has developed to become a normal aspect of many political struggles for the accomplishment of national objectives (Slomanson, p. 468). It's one of the legitimate uses of force since it may be necessary for the achievement of political power in internal and international relations. According to the contemporary political scientists, international rules regarding force are normally meaningless during crises since binding limitations regarding the use of force have never been effective. However, the extent on the use of force by a state in its international relations continues to raise a profusion and confusion of politico-legal concerns that can't be analyzed. One of the reasons for the legitimacy of the use of force in political struggles is because of the widespread publicity given to such instances unlike instances of peaceful cooperation. Consequently, many countries have applied a combination of threats, military actions, and economic coercion for the achievement of political objectives.

Countermeasures:

The use of force is legitimate when it's applied as a counter-action that reacts to allegations of internationally wrongful conduct. One of the prominent examples of such measures is reprisal, which is a coercive action that basically involves the authorized seizure of persons or property in another country. This counter-action is used as a retaliation initiative towards a prior wrong that was carried out by a state or its citizens (Slomanson, p. 471). While countermeasures were not relatively uncommon during war, it became authorized under the contemporary international law during times of peace.

Even though reprisals can either be private or public, public reprisals are the most commonly used countermeasures because they mainly involve injuries sustained by the state itself. The uses of these countermeasures in the contemporary international law began in the 18th Century when governments started to authorize reprisals as retaliation to injuries caused to its citizens by foreign governments. Whereas countermeasures are some of the negative features of international relations, they are regarded as some of the lawful uses of force under the contemporary international law.

The other most commonly used countermeasures are actions that are typically launched by a government for self-defense reasons. Legitimate self-defense initiatives are justifications for the use of force while measures undertaken for other purposes are unjustifiable. However, it's important to note that legal countermeasures are constrained by proportionality or necessity principles.

Types of Illegal Uses of Force:

As various types of legal uses of force have continued to evolve in the recent past, the emergence of peaceful co-existence policies has resulted in the illegal uses of force. Some of the cases of illegal uses force include the following & #8230;

Clandestine Support:

The use of force is considered illegal when a state is involved in clandestine support in a conflict involving two other countries. Under the contemporary international law, a state that is a third-party to a conflict should always remain neutral (Slomanson, p. 473). When the third-party state supports one of the warring parties in the conflict by providing military support its use of force is regarded as illegal. The use of clandestine support by a third-party state to support one of the warring parties is an illegal use of force.

Low-intensity Conflict:

Under the contemporary international law, the spectrum of the use of force is within the categories of small-scale hostilities and all-out war. Low-intensity conflicts started to emerge with the ongoing frequency in the post-Cold War period. While there have been numerous wars in the 20th Century, there have been low-intensity conflicts during the same period. Low-intensity conflicts are those with lesser magnitudes of destruction and deaths for the affected individuals. Based on the United States military definition of low-intensity conflict, it usually involves extended struggles of competing ideologies and principles.

The use of force in low-intensity conflicts can be regarded as illegal because it's usually below conventional war though beyond the peaceful competition between states. The conflicts are waged through a combination of political, informational, military, and economic instruments. The use of force in these types of conflicts is largely considered as illegal because of the nature of the war or conflict since they are below the conventional war and above peaceful competition.

Necessity for Powerful States:

During the development of contemporary international law in the 18th and 19th centuries, the use of force was always regarded as a necessity for powerful states. Actually, more powerful states especially European countries established convenient justifications for their aggressive uses of force (Slomanson, p. 475). These powerful states stated that the use of force was the only efficient method for enforcing international law. This resulted in the limitless use of force that became the focus of national policies for many leaders and states as a means of preserving national security. However, this self-righteous justification by powerful states about their use of force is illegal since it's only used as a means of preserving a country's national interests rather than the peaceful co-existence of nations.