Introduction to issue 10(1)

Welcome to this lustrum edition of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, now in its tenth year of publication.More than one year after the launchof Russia’s ‘specialmilitary operation’ in February 2022,we continue to put the spotlight on a range of jus ad bellum issues, both of a thematic nature as well as linked to specific armed confrontations, such as that mentioned above. Our issue opens with an editorial by co-editor-in-chief James Green, who observes how many western states have provided significant amounts of weapons as well as logistical aid toUkraine since early 2022. Green specifically poses the question whether such assistance qualifies as a ‘use of force’ in the sense of Article 2(4) UN Charter (on the assumption that, if this were to be the case, it would constitute a lawful exercise of collective self-defence). While some scholars have answered the question in the affirmative, and a few supporting states have expressly invoked the doctrine of self-defence, Green ultimately remains sceptical that the mere provision of weapons or logistical support triggers the application of the prohibition on the use of force. Next, Işıl Aral examines how international law scholars construct their arguments when they argue for the emergence of a new customary norm. In particular, the author examines democratic governance discourses to analyse the way in which scholars resort to the involvement of the Security Council as a narrative technique that provides persuasiveness to their argument. Aral does so by examining how scholars have reiterated the same interpretation regarding the Security Council’s involvement in the post-election crises in Haiti, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire, and by construing these precedents as forming part of a cumulative practice. In turn, Chloe Goldthorpe examines ongoing debates over the ‘armed attack’ requirement under Article 51 of the UN Charter from a ‘TWAIL’ perspective. Put differently, Goldthorpe uses insights from ‘Third World Approaches to International Law’ to analyse state-issued statements on the right of self-defence, contending that such conclusions result from academic approaches that not only over-privilege the limited practice of a few states, but also do not sufficiently consider inherent bias within the construction