Does International Law Allow Rwanda to Fight the FDLR? An International Lawyer Explains

[00:00:00]You know, one of the cornerstones of the UN charter is that states cannot violate another country's sovereigntity or or territory. Yet, Ronda argues that the continued presence presence of armed groups like the FDL inside eastern DRC gives it the right to take defensive measures.

[00:00:22]So again, you are the law expert, so help us understand this beyond some of the politics.

[00:00:30]Where is that legal line? Where does self-defense justify crossing another country's borders? And when does it become unlawful aggression? Where's that line? [snorts] And who gets to define it? So uh the UN charter is clear that states should not use force or threat of use of force against other states.

[00:00:56]>> But the right to self-defense is inherent. It is a natural right. So >> so it's not in the UN charter.

[00:01:04]>> No, no, it is in the UN charter.

[00:01:06]>> Okay. So the what the UN charter says is that the the UN charter does not prohibit states individually or collectively to defend themselves in case of an attack.

[00:01:19]>> Mhm.

[00:01:20]>> In case of an armed attack. [snorts] So then uh the the question uh becomes of um of whether uh there has been an attack that justifies self-defense or not because as we said uh the UN prohibits states from use of force or threat of use of force against other states.

[00:01:54]So if there is an armed attack on another state, that state has a right to defend itself.

[00:02:02]>> So Rwanda's argument is that there have been successive attacks from the territory of DRC to Rwanda and Rwanda has a right to defend itself.

[00:02:18]Then the question is of a non-state actor >> if it's not the national army of the congalles.

[00:02:26]>> Exactly.

[00:02:27]So uh but you we move to the next step which is unwillingness or inability of the host state to deal with the threat because you don't want to be a threat to other states >> and simply say I'm not responsible but people will operate on my territory and cause threat to other states >> or maybe they'll say that it's not that I'm not responsible I wish I could be but I'm physically unable to. So in that situation uh and I have made this argument elsewhere, [snorts] you you you the state that is willing but unable you can invite the victim state work with it to deal with the threat then you take away the the mistrust >> the excuse >> the excuse but then if what happens if I don't want to so If you don't want to >> Mhm.

[00:03:30]>> then I have my right because the primary responsibility of a state is to is to protect uh not only its territory but its citizens and interests.

[00:03:47]So you cannot be adamant when I'm being um harmed as and and and hope that I don't intervene to deal with the threat that is that is being caused.

[00:04:04]>> I guess the question is is who defines what a level of threat is?

[00:04:09]>> Um when is a threat too much? when is an aggression too much right so if for example there's fel I think no one no one argues whether it's the international community whether it's international press whether it's human rights organizations even the congalles themselves no one argues that there's no fela the argument is is the felair a threat to Rwanda.

[00:04:46]Now, there's a group of people who say no, it is not a threat. And in fact, the FDLE is actually more of a threat to the Congalles.

[00:05:00]Ronda is going to argue that as long as the FDLA is there with their ideology and their wish to have uh an armed return to Ronda, it will always remain a threat whether or not It is launching attacks on Roman territory.

[00:05:20]Now, a lot of the time we fall in love with the political argument. I'm I want to stay within the legal framing.

[00:05:30]Who gets to decide what the threat is?

[00:05:35]Is it the states?

[00:05:38]Is it international law?

[00:05:43]Is it about who has power and who does not? Who gets to define what things are?

[00:05:48]Are there rules?

[00:05:51]So, uh the the the you would not uh again when it comes to so these are these are two different branches of law.

[00:06:09]The laws of going to war are different from the laws of fighting.

[00:06:14]>> What do you mean? Sounds the same.

[00:06:15]>> Uh >> the laws of going to war are different from the laws of fighting.

[00:06:19]>> Yes. So the laws of going to war are the ones that we've talked about that are found in the UN charter >> that says the states are not supposed to use force in their relationship, but they have a right to self-defense the moment they are there is an attack.

[00:06:39]an armed attack or on their on their territory that violates their their territorial integrity.

[00:06:49]Uh international law does not set the threshold on which an attack has >> the threat of attack.

[00:07:00]>> The threat of attack or an attack.

[00:07:03]>> [snorts] >> It does not say that you have to have been an a city should have been bombed to the ground to be able to defend yourself.

[00:07:14]Uh international law is clear that the use of force the use of military force by one state on the territory of another state >> is in itself an armed attack. Even if it is one single shot >> even if it's a storm. Yes, the use of the use of military force of an armed force of one state on the territory of another state is in itself an even if this the the victim state does not respond.

[00:07:47]It is an act of aggression. So the question is and here is where it becomes uh where the thinking has to go is that these conducts are by a non-state actor.

[00:08:03]But I I think it is not very difficult to establish a relationship between this non uh state actor with the state >> in where they operate. And I think to be honest, if you look at a lot of the um group of experts reports, they do agree that there is a level of cooperation between the DRC uh army and FDL in terms of the fight against M23 as well as uh acts and attacks against the the randopones and also uh the state of Randa. So I don't the the the argument the your argument does not have to be I guess too hard to to put forward. the the there's media there's international reports that actually say this that say that you know what the the congalles government is not 100% it's it's not hands off you know it's not saying that you know these FDA are over there we don't do nothing with them no you you that's even uh well that goes to collaboration or compl or what of the conduct of FDA. But even if that was not there, >> the mere fact is that they are on the territory of DRC.

[00:09:39]>> DRC has the primary responsibility of everything that happens on its territory. Mhm.

[00:09:46]>> Consequently, it should be able to for purposes even for purposes of good neighborhoodness, not to allow its territory to be used against a neighboring state.

[00:10:03]>> You know, what you're saying is is really interesting. So right now, you know, we sometimes we we forget that uh there there are conflicts outside our region. Right now there's a big conflict between uh in the Middle East between Hezbollah and the state of Israel. And you said something that that reminds me of uh something that uh Trump said uh when he was talking to the Israelis. He was saying that you know if Hezbollah sends a drone into Israel and it lands in a desert.

[00:10:47]You should not send missiles into Beirut.

[00:10:52]That somehow it's not done. But it almost seems like within the law itself.

[00:11:00]>> So So that's what >> it seems like it's allowed. Let me let me try to say what I did not uh uh finish.

[00:11:08]So you shouldn't send the bomb to Beirut is the laws of fighting.

[00:11:19]Meaning in the laws of fighting their principles are humanitarian principles. The principle of proportionality, the principle of distinction, the principle of not causing unnecessary suffering.

[00:11:33]This so those principles of humanitarian law concerns the laws of fighting.

[00:11:40]>> You might have a right to fight.

[00:11:43]>> Yes.

[00:11:43]>> But are you fighting correctly >> or should you? But generally we are not talking about whether you had a right to fight or not because the laws of fighting are not concerned with whether you had a right to fight or not because their main purpose is humanitarian is to ensure that because they international law uh the understands that armed conflict is the worst that can happen to human beings. So the moment you have started fighting, you should at least try to fight humanly.

[00:12:22]So that's where uh some people would make arguments about proportionality.

[00:12:28]They would argue that we are not saying that Rwanda is not under threat, but we think it's response is disproportionate.

[00:12:38]Hey, if you like this snippet, there's a lot more waiting for you on the Long Form Podcast YouTube channel. Go check out the full conversation.