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.