This article explores the international law governing self-defence. Developments since the conclusion of World WarⅡ, such as the emergence of international terrorism and rogue states and the easier availability of weapons of mass destruction, have placed enormous strain on the bright line rules of the UN Charter system.
Particulary, after 9⋅11 attack so many international law professor argue that more temporal imminence and more on the magnitude of potential harm and the probability of an attack. Among of them, professor John Yoo, further argues that the consensus academic view on self-defence-that force is justified only as a necessary response to an imminent attack. Firstly he criticizes the current UN Charter system's regulation of the use of force and describes challenges that have emerged during postwar period. He also criticizes current self-defence doctrine and argues that it must take into account threats that go beyond the great power conflicts that worried the creators of the UN Charter system. Working within the existing legal structure, it develops an approach that expands the concept of imminence to include the magnitude and probability of an attack. Finally he conclude by suggesting a different model for the use of force that maximize the stability of the international system.
Like this, re-interpretation of international law very closely related to international system. It means that the standards of using force changing now, and will change more than before. In this situation, I argue that we must know about international-law exactly and also know about changeable situation.