JOSEF MRÁZEK CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ Libyan territory. 71 Tom Ruys mentioned as being among cases of “forcible protection” e.g. the use of force by the US in the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983) and Panama. 72 a legitime question may arise as to what is then in fact the difference from humanitarian intervention? It is suggested that one distinguish between “forcible hostage rescues” and “non- combat evacuation operations”. The legal justifications of both these actions with regard to the UN principles remain a matter of controversy, despite some successful “rescue operations” in the past. No treaty or customary law allowing force to protect or rescue nationals abroad exists so far. These actions have often provoked a widespread condemnation by the international community. On the other hand, there is an opinion supporting “forcible protection” as an internationally evolving practice. 5.2 Consent Sometimes consent of government is considered to be legal basis for foreign armed forces to enter the territory of given state. The ILA Report states that if consent to the deployment of military personnel is validly given, there is no use of force against the host state. In this context, it is possible to reply that international law does not know the right to intervene on invitation. The ICJ confirmed that there is no right for states to intervene directly or indirectly with or without armed force in support of an “international position in another state.” 73 On the other hand, outside military support of the “ruling regime” may violate democratic principles of government and civil society. Armed actions upon invitation by the de iure government to use force against “rebels” during an armed conflict are controversial and would be mostly condemned by the majority of states. This is probably not valid in case of “terrorism”. There is also room for a different interpretation of this invitation. It is possible to mention the invitation of president Beriska in March 1997 sent to the European states to restore order in Albania. 74 External suppression of a country’s opposition may negatively affect the international legitimacy of a government and rule of law principles in general. Foreign involvement may also instigate or influence internal conflicts and eliminate a legitime struggle of people for self-determination. The ILA Report stipulates that “it is generally prohibited to “forcibly” intervene on behalf of a rebel movement.” 75 State practice indicates that assistance by states to various rebel or insurgent groups not only by provision of arms and training of forces but also by provision of non-lethal equipment and supplies is an everyday reality. Even a direct military involvement of foreign forces in internal conflicts is not excluded. The governmental consent for entrance of foreign forces during an
71 Supra note 69, p. 9. 72 Supra note 71, p. 233. 73 ICJ Reports, supra note 65, pp. 14, 126, 206.