This article argues that, in certain circumstances, it is legal for a state to use force in self-defence in order to recover territory unlawfully occupied by another state as a result of an armed attack. Where occupation follows from an unlawful armed attack, the occupation is a continuing armed attack, and the attacked state does not lose its right to self-defence simply because of passage of time. It is argued that while it is trite law that territorial disputes cannot be resolved by recourse to force, it is important to draw the distinction between a territorial dispute, on the one hand, and a situation of armed attack resulting in occupation of territory, on the other. Furthermore, where years pass between the initial attack and the use of force in self-defence, that may suggest that there is no other reasonable means of bringing the armed attack and occupation to an end, rendering the use of force in self-defence the ultima ratio – which is precisely the point of the necessity requirement. On this view, time runs against, rather than in favour of, the aggressor.

中文翻译：

---

法律：在自卫中使用武力收复被占领土

本文认为，在某些情况下，一国使用武力进行自卫以收复因武装袭击而被另一国非法占领的领土是合法的。如果占领是在非法武装攻击之后发生的，则占领是持续的武装攻击，被攻击国不会仅仅因为时间的流逝而丧失自卫权。有人认为，虽然领土争端不能通过诉诸武力解决是陈词滥调，但重要的是要区分一方面领土争端和武装攻击导致占领领土的情况，另一方面另一个。此外，在最初的攻击和使用武力进行自卫之间经过多年，这可能表明没有其他合理的手段可以结束武装攻击和占领，从而使在自卫中使用武力成为最后的比率——这正是必要性要求的要点。根据这种观点，时间与侵略者背道而驰，而不是有利于侵略者。