Intervention by (secret) invitation: searching for a requirement of publicity in the international law on the use of force with consent

ABSTRACT Evolving practices of conflict – towards remote, light-foot, long-term, ‘liquid’ interventions – make interrogations into the consent of one state to the use of force by another on its territory (intervention by invitation) increasingly pressing. In Pakistan, the US carried out remote airstrikes for nine years on the basis of secret consent, raising the question of whether valid consent contains a requirement of publicity. An examination of state responsibility, jus ad bellum, and examples of state practice from 1944 to the present shows that, though consent tends to be publicised, in a doctrinal legal sense there is insufficient evidence to suggest an obligation to publicise. This article argues that the absence of a requirement to publicise suggests consent does not restrict the use of force, but enables it, revealing a doctrine that lends itself to the service of hegemony and the projection of power by states.