5.2 Invitation and civil wars : In traditional international law it was quite clear that the principle volenti non fit applied to the effect that a state was free to allow another to use force in any form in its own territory. The question arises as to whether the principle survives the UN Charter. In other words, is consent one of the exceptions to the prohibition on use of force? There seems little doubt from state practice and

doi:10.4324/9781843143802-126

Chapter

Chapter

ABSTRACT

the attack and a number discussed the right of anticipatory self-defence in more general terms. Opinion as to whether such a right existed was divided, delegates from Pakistan, Guyana, Syria, Spain and Yugoslavia clearly supporting the restrictive view; delegates from Sierra Leone, Uganda, Malaysia, Niger, and the UK supporting the permissive view. Other examples follow a similar pattern. It seems to be correct to state that while there is no consensus among state practice recognising a right of anticipatory self-defence, there is certainly no consensus supporting the restrictive view. Given the general principle that the subjects of international law are free to do everything that is not specifically prohibited it would seem correct to state that the right of anticipatory self-defence remains pending the introduction of an authoritative rule prohibiting it.