FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Is There a Right to Armed Struggle?

Major new developments have muddled the right to armed struggle. The global war on terrorism openly denies that any such right exists. The collapse of the Soviet Union has undermined the Marxist-Leninist concept of armed struggle, which overthrew numerous old regimes. Great liberation movements that freed Asian and African lands from colonial empires have dissipated, even though neocolonialism is retaking many lands and their resources. Great guerilla leaders of the 20th century such as Mao Zedong, Che Guvera, and Yasser Arafat have passed away, leaving behind uncertain legacies. New armed revolutionaries are treated worse than criminals as suppressive states make every effort to kill them. Nations, such as Iran and Syria, which allegedly support the right to armed struggle, have been designated as terrorist states. The United States, the sole superpower, is planning to build tactical nuclear weapons to incinerate caves and bunkers that might shelter any infrastructure of resistance and militancy.

Despite these developments, international law has not yet repudiated the right to armed struggle. In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly passed historic Resolution 3314, adopting the Definition of Aggression that includes the right to armed struggle. The Definition embodies customary international law. Therefore, it cannot be dismissed as mere political opinion. The Definition forbids states and coalitions of states from “any military occupation, however temporary.” It also prohibits bombardments, blockades, or forced annexations of any lands. The Definition warns that no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, justifies aggression. Even a declaration of war furnishes no legal basis to commit aggression. Furthermore, the Definition treats acts of aggression as crimes against peace.

In outlawing all forms of aggression, however, the Definition provides an exception for the right to armed struggle. It states: “Nothing in this definition of aggression could in any way prejudice the right to self- determination, freedom and independence of peoples forcibly deprived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support.” Although the text mentions “struggle” and not “armed struggle,” its contextual meaning includes both. Even logic yields such an interpretation. Since the Definition lists unlawful uses of force, the exception must refer to the lawful use of force. Accordingly, the people under occupation, apartheid, and alien domination may resort to armed struggle in pursuit of freedom and independence. They may also seek and receive arms and other support from external sources. This is the law of armed struggle.

The war on terrorism aims at repudiating this law. The insurgents fighting the US occupation in Iraq are branded as terrorists and criminals. Neighboring states are under intense diplomatic and military pressure to provide no assistance to Iraqi insurgents. Likewise, Israel labels all attacks on its civilians, settlers, and occupying soldiers as terrorism. Dozens of Palestinian groups fighting for self-determination, including Hamas, have been declared terrorist organizations. Even charities providing funds for armed struggle have been criminalized and closed down.

Has terrorism repudiated the right to armed struggle? One could argue that the Definition of Aggression was adopted more than thirty years ago; and therefore, it no longer embodies the current consensus on the right to armed struggle. This argument has no merit since every year various international organizations and institutions reaffirm the right of self-determination against colonial and racist regimes, and other forms of alien domination.

In 2005, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed the Palestinians’ right of self-determination, urging “all member states and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.” In another resolution, the Commission condemned “the use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life, vast numbers of injuries and massive destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital infrastructure.” These resolutions do not specifically mention the right to armed struggle. But they invoke the language of the Definition of Aggression pertaining to alien domination and racist regimes, a language that embodies the right to armed struggle.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states, is most forthcoming in its recognition of the right to armed struggle. The OIC Convention on Combating International Terrorism (1998) states in unambiguous terms that “Peoples’ struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” This allowance for armed struggle, however, is not unbridled. Militants fighting for liberation and self-determination must execute their struggle within the confines of international law.

Law aside, even good morals cannot take away the right to armed struggle. For if there were no right to armed struggle, predatory states would be emboldened to subjugate weak nations. And if a people under occupation have no right to seek and receive support from outside sources, they will be unable to engage in any effective resistance. The occupying states wish to change the law and morality of armed struggle so that they can easily crush the will of the occupied.

The right to armed struggle might have faded away, had international institutions and superpowers played by the rules that mandate peaceful resolution of disputes and prohibit all forms of aggression. Successful resolution of self-determination conflicts in Chechnya, Kashmir, and Palestine might have blunted the need for armed struggle. But the UN Security Council, the watchdog of international peace and security, has worsened these disputes through inaction, deadlock, and vetoes. The United States, the sole superpower, has behaved even more irresponsibly by choosing aggression at will.

Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas. His book, A Theory of International Terrorism, will be published in 2006. Send comments to ali.khan@washburn.edu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
January 24, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
A Letter From Iowa
Jim Kavanagh
Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Camp by the Lake
Chuck Churchill
The Long History of Elite Rule: What Will It Take To End It?
Robert Hunziker
A Climate Time Bomb With Trump’s Name Inscribed
Andrew Levine
Trump: The King
Jess Franklin
Globalizing the War on Indigenous People: Bolsonaro and Modi
James Graham
From Paris, With Tear Gas…
Rob Urie
Why the Primaries Matter
Dan Bacher
Will the Extinction of Delta Smelt Be Governor Gavin Newsom’s Environmental Legacy?
Ramzy Baroud
In the Name of “Israel’s Security”: Retreating US Gives Israel Billions More in Military Funding
Vijay Prashad
What the Right Wing in Latin America Means by Democracy Is Violence
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Biden’s Shameful Foreign Policy Record Extends Well Beyond Iraq
Louis Proyect
Isabel dos Santos and Africa’s Lumpen-Bourgeoisie
Nick Pemberton
AK-46: The Case Against Amy Klobuchar
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Promtheus’ Fire: Climate Change in the Time of Willful Ignorance
Linn Washington Jr.
Waiting for Justice in New Jersey
Ralph Nader
Pelosi’s Choice: Enough for Trump’s Impeachment but not going All Out for Removal
Mike Garrity – Jason Christensen
Don’t Kill 72 Grizzly Bears So Cattle Can Graze on Public Lands
Joseph Natoli
Who’s Speaking?
Kavaljit Singh
The US-China Trade Deal is Mostly Symbolic
Cesar Chelala
The Coronavirus Serious Public Health Threat in China
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Must Remain Vigilant and on Guard Against US Hybrid Warfare
Robert Fantina
Impeachment as a Distraction
Courtney Bourgoin
What We Lose When We Lose Wildlife
Mark Ashwill
Why Constructive Criticism of the US is Not Anti-American
Daniel Warner
Charlie Chaplin and Truly Modern Times
Manuel Perez-Rocha
How NAFTA 2.0 Boosts Fossil Fuel Polluters, Particularly in Mexico
Dean Baker
What Minimum Wage Would Be If It Kept Pace With Productivity
Mel Gurtov
India’s Failed Democracy
Thomas Knapp
US v. Sineneng-Smith: Does Immigration Law Trump Free Speech?
Winslow Myers
Turning Point: The new documentary “Coup 53”
Jeff Mackler
U.S. vs. Iran: Which Side are You On?
Sam Pizzigati
Braggadocio in the White House, Carcinogens in Our Neighborhoods
Christopher Brauchli
The Company Trump Keeps
Julian Vigo
Why Student Debt is a Human Rights Issue
Ramzy Baroud
These Chains Will Be Broken
Chris Wright
A Modest Proposal for Socialist Revolution
Thomas Barker
The Slow Death of European Social Democracy: How Corbynism Bucked the Trend
Nicky Reid
It’s Time to Bring the War Home Again
Michelle Valadez
Amy Klobuchar isn’t Green
David Swanson
CNN Poll: Sanders Is The Most Electable
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Our Dire Need for “Creative Extremists”—MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”
Jill Richardson
‘Little Women’ and the American Attitude Toward Poverty
David Yearsley
Watching Star Wars in Berlin
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail