Would a Retaliatory Strike Trigger Article 5?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lisab
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    article
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of NATO's Article 5 in the context of retaliatory strikes. Participants explore whether a retaliatory attack by a non-NATO country on a NATO member, following a first-strike by that NATO member, would trigger collective defense obligations under Article 5. The scope includes legal interpretations, historical precedents, and the nuances of military alliances.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if a retaliatory strike against a NATO country would be considered an attack on all NATO countries, referencing the language of Article 5.
  • Another participant suggests that the treaty allows for discretion, implying that member states may choose not to respond despite the treaty's language.
  • A further contribution emphasizes that if a NATO member does not deem a response necessary, they may feel no obligation to act, highlighting the subjective interpretation of "necessary."
  • Historical context is introduced, noting that first strikes have often been framed as retaliatory, citing the example of Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of Article 5 and the obligations it creates. There is no consensus on whether a retaliatory strike would trigger collective defense, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the ambiguity in the language of Article 5, particularly regarding the terms "will assist" and "as it deems necessary," which may influence member states' responses. Historical examples are referenced to illustrate the complexities of first-strike narratives.

lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
612
Suppose a NATO country makes a first-strike against a non-NATO country. If that non-NATO country strikes back in an armed attack, is that considered an attack against all NATO countries?

In other words, would an armed attack on a NATO country that is a retaliatory strike trigger Article 5?

Article 5:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

Consider the phrase " if such an armed attack occurs, each of them...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith...such action as it deems necessary...". The use of "will assist" instead of "shall assist", and the phrase "...as it deems necessary" -- do these phrases give an out to NATO to not attack?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's always an out. "Yes, the treaty says we will. But we won't. Suck it up." So I think the answer is "it depends on what the member states think".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda and Bystander
Yep, I read " each of them will assist the Party attacked by taking such action as it deems necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

If one doesn't deem it necessary to lift a finger, I don't see why they would be obliged.
 
It also may be worth pointing out the historically first strikes have been portrayed as retaliatory by their initiators. The 1939 German invasion of Poland was in "retaliation" for the Gleiwitz Incident.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K