Case study of North Korea invading the US water filtration system——Sissy Zhang
The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of
others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use ofdeadly force.[1]If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect
self-defense" justification. If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.
（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense）
Does the United States have the right to respond forcefully to North Korea?
need-to-insert-img
When assessing whether the US attack on the DPRK's technical facilities meets the conditions of justifiable defense, we need to consider the provisions of international law on the right of self-defense, especially article 51 of the UN Charter. The provision recognizes the right of all States to self-defense, including individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack. According to the news, North Korea invaded the U. S. water filtration system and killed hundreds of people, which could be seen as an armed attack on the United States. In this case, the United States has the right to take the necessary self-defense measures to protect its people and its infrastructure. However, the requirement of justifiable defense is that the defensive measures must be necessary and proportionate. This means that the US counterattack should be designed to prevent further attacks and should not be beyond what necessary.
Was the response proportional and was the target appropriate?
need-to-insert-img
Using predator drones to destroy North Korea's computer servers, and if this action is directed against North Korea's cyber-attack capabilities and is designed to prevent future attacks, then I think it could be seen as a proportionate response. In addition, the United States operating at night and ensuring that there are no casualties shows that the United States is trying to minimize other damage to North Korea, which is in line with the international principles of self-defense and that the very least target is appropriate in the analysis of the matter. In addition, there are no positions and views on other international organizations or countries mentioned in the only news, but as an influential IR actors, their response will also be regarded as valuable reference and evaluation criteria.(So I would like to ask whether other IR actions can be added to make the background and elaboration of the whole event more complete, and to provide more conditions for the truly dynamic international community.）
What aspect(s) of this incident are debatable and why?
need-to-insert-img
First and foremost,the most controversial and my whole article is trying to explain whether the American
action is really necessary and whether there are other non-force solutions. This is mainly based on assessing the outcome of whether the United States has acted beyond the necessary scope of self-defense and whether the whole event may lead to further escalation or deterioration of the situation. This thing is a worth noting the dispute is considered through the United States against north Korea is commensurate, and whether there are other means of peaceful settlement of disputes, in other peaceful settlement of dispute means to do so
whether should be condemned, will not be other international organizations and retaliation and change of
position. I think "nighttime action" is also seen as an extension of the disputed option, if it is defined as a legally reasonable self-defense, whether its chosen timing and act would override the reasonableness of its motive to be considered beyond the scope of self-defense.
What specific aspects of the event render it lawful or not?
need-to-insert-img
Before answering and discussing this question, I would like to divide the answer into two parts: behavioral motivation and relevant law.
Firstly, the law most worthy of reference and evaluation in this event is the definition of self-defense law in the Charter of the United Nations. Furthermore, international humanitarian law, such as the Geneva
Convention, also provides principles concerning the protection of civilians in armed conflicts and their
compliance with the rules of war. And the definition of aggression and weapons attack in its own countries. The second is whether the behavioral attack complies with the above relevant laws, including but not limited to: proving that its actions are a direct response to the DPRK armed attack and are a necessary self-defense measure. Whether beyond the necessary scope of self-defense and beyond the military objectives of the
counterattack —— follows the principle of necessity.
