A few weeks ago, Panama’s Foreign Ministry [announced](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-36852120) the creation of a special community tasked with investigating the US invasion of Panama in 1989. According to the Foreign Ministry, Panama’s government is committed to producing the first "truth report" on the invasion, opening the door for reparations for victims and their families. Although highly controversial within the international community, the United States’ actions in Panama were never condemned by the United Nation’s Security Council—likely a result of the position held by the United States as a permanent member of the council. 

Still, the invasion was a clear violation of international law.   
<br>
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/dHXbDXw.jpg)</center>
<h1>So what happened?</h1> 

It seems that the relationship between Panama’s Leader Miguel Noriega and the United States began to decline in 1985 after the Reagan Administration voiced disapproval of the Leader’s involvement in drug trade operations.  Following Noriega’s suppression of an unarmed demonstration in 1987, the United States ordered Noriega to step down and subsequently indicted on him on charges of drug trafficking. It was around this time that the United States Army was instructed to devise a plan to protect Americans, keep the canal open, and assist any government that might replace the Noriega regime. The plan, Operation Just Cause, called for the accumulation of roughly 27,000 troops in Panama to dismantle the Panama Defense Force.
<br>
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/JXubD8h.jpg)</center><br>

In April 1989, Panama requested a meeting with the UN Security Council to discuss the actions of the United States against the nation.  These actions included marching troops up and down the country’s causeways and conducting military helicopter exercises in civilian areas. In its address to the Council, Panama explained that tensions between the two countries were a result of the United States’ unilateral interpretation of the Canal Treaties: An interpretation which would provide for U.S. military presence in Panama past the agreed upon year of 2000. Panama argued that, in addition to threats of force, the economic, political, and financial aggression issued by the U.S. were committed with the purpose of regulating Panama’s internal affairs. The goal, they said, was to overthrow a constitutionally established government, and install a puppet regime that would agree to the continued U.S. presence past the date specified by the Canal Treaties. 

The U.S. encouraged the Security Council to dismiss these arguments, however, claiming that Panama was only requesting the meetings in order to divert attention from its upcoming elections. The U.S. felt that the elections would be fraudulent and halt the Panamanian people’s right to democracy. Panama returned to the Council a number of times before the invasion, but a resolution was never passed. 

On December 15, 1989, a U.S. officer stationed in Panama was shot at a checkpoint following a drunken brawl. Claiming that the shooting was an “armed attack,” the U.S. finally had an excuse to execute Operation Just Cause under the auspices of self-defense. Over 200 aircrafts were employed to Panama where forces were ordered to detain Noriega so that U.S. diplomats could install a new civilian government. <br>
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/1FtneZE.jpg)</center><br>
<h1>International Law on the use of force</h1>

As a member of the United Nations, any use of force by the United States against Panama, a sovereign nation, must have been in compliance with the mandates of the United Nations Charter.  A multilateral-treaty ratified by the United States in 1945 and therefore legally binding, the Charter outlined the only circumstances providing for the use of force and established the ratifying Members’ commitment to respect state sovereignty and maintain international peace and security. 

Still, the Charter does uphold the use of force by a Member State who acts in self-defense. It is this recognized use of force, or Article 51, which the United States relied upon when it chose to invade Panama. Recognizing an “inherent right to individual or collective self-defense,” Article 51 permits the invocation of that right if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. 

<h2>Was the Unites States use of force a lawful act of self-defense?</h2>

Based on the provisions of the U.N. Charter and the customary international law existing at the time, the U.S. invasion of Panama and subsequent overthrow of its government was not a permissible use of force under international law. The event that immediately preceded the U.S.’ address at the Council meeting on the date of the invasion was the death of an unarmed lieutenant and the assault of a couple by Panama defensemen. The intentional murder of a citizen may warrant criminal indictment—such as had been taken against Noriega for drug trafficking—however, the death of a soldier with no certainty as to who, if anyone, had ordered the shot, does not constitute grave force nor is it significant in scale to be defined as an armed attack as required by Article 51 and interpreted by the International Court of Justice.

<h3>*Absence of the Requisite “Armed Attack”*</h3>

In the U.S.’ letter to the Council notifying the Members to the U.S.’ use of force against Panama in accordance with Article 51, reference is made to “armed attacks,” rather than a single incident. Either the U.S. is referring to the death of the serviceman and assault of the couple as multiple armed attacks, or it is referring to a series of acts believed to have taken place over a period of time. Nevertheless, if a single shooting would not represent a use of grave harm, the addition of one other incident of lesser violence would raise the harm to a level significant in scale.<br>
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/8uciPGI.jpg)</center><br>
In his address to the nation, President Bush asserted that the ordering of military force to the region was to extinguish the imminent danger faced by 35,000 American nationals as a result of Noriega’s proclamation that the two countries were in a state of war, but also to defend democracy, and protect the commitments of the Canal Treaties. While Noriega’s declaration of the state of war permits the inference of a threat of violence or possibly constitutes an act of aggression, the context of the statement—given Panama’s repeated request for Council review should certainly mitigate any plausible concern that grave harm on a significant scale was about to be unleashed upon the American’s residing in Panama. 

<h3>*The Threat was not Imminent*</h3>

Even if the U.S. claimed to have exercised its right to anticipatory self-defense as a result of the “attacks,” Operation Just Cause was conceived of over a year before the U.S. felt the alleged threat of imminent danger. Although the presence of ulterior motive does not bar an act of self-defense so long as the legal requisites are present, the existence of a plan designed to remedy the exact issues repeatedly presented to the Council in response to Panama certainly undermines the argument that the invasion was a necessary response to an imminent threat that could not be settled through peaceful negotiations. Additionally, the deployment of over 20,000 troops to Panama—whose first orders were to capture Noriega and install a new government—was not proportional to the possible threat perceived by the U.S. 
	
<h3>*Lack of Proportionality*</h3>  

The right to anticipatory self-defense permits only the amount of force necessary to extinguish the imminent threat. Deploying over 27,000 troops, including the use of Capturing Noriega and overthrowing Panama’s government exceeded the measures necessary to ensure the safety of Americans in the country. Proportionality may have existed if the U.S. had only sent troops to Panama in order to evacuate the Americans perceived to be in danger. Instead, the amount of force—even if the armed attack threshold had been met—was completely unproportional. The use of F-117 Stealth Fighters and incorporation of all branches of the military for the largest military operation taken by the United State since the Vietnam War was not the amount of force strictly necessary for the perceived threat.<br> 
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/Pv1wSWT.jpg)</center>

<h2>Was the use of force an unlawful act of intervention?</h2>

Since the United States’ use of force against Panama was not within the parameters of either the Charter of the United Nations or customary international law, it was therefore an unlawful use of force. Customarily known as “intervention,” the Charter provides under Article 2(4) that all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. 

The United States activities in Panama were, without doubt, a violation of the principle of nonintervention. From the beginning of the planning stages of Operation Just Cause, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed the Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command to, among other things, “develop a plan to assist any government that might replace the Noriega regime.”  With the people’s democratic election of Guillermo Endara and his immediate overthrow by Noriega, the United States’ certainly had ample rhetoric to defend its invasion to the public as upholding the Panamanian people’s right to a democracy, however, there is no support—either customary or treaty-based—that allows for the intervention of a foreign State into the territory of another. 

Operation Just Cause was not a humanitarian intervention, it was an invasion aimed at overthrowing and installing a new Government in foreign territory. Regardless of how noble the mission was, it was still a matter of Panama’s internal concern and therefore governed by international law. Had the United State’s sought less intrusive measures to accomplish the re-installation of Endara as Head of State of Panama, maybe the violation wouldn’t have been as flagrant. It may have been a successful “military mission”—by the United States’ standards—to deploy over 27,000 troops equipped with 2,000 lb fighter jet bombs (and loud rock music) to a country whose combat troops totaled 4,000 men, and subsequently occupy the territory for nearly a month. Under the standards of international law however, it was an unlawful intervention contrary to the United States’ treaty obligations. 
<br>
<center>![Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/jOZsXKP.jpg)</center>

<h2>So What?</h2>

While still in the minds of the people of Panama, the invasion became a distant memory for the rest of the world. That may change, however, now that Panama is working with the UN to investigate the matter.

Only time will tell.  

**Sources**

[UN Charter](http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/index.html)

[Operation Just Cause](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/justcaus.pdf)