The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether military assistance given on request breaks international law. To do this, the thesis will investigate (1) the legal basis for requesting military assistance, (2) the legal merits of proposals raised in scholarship arguing for when and how providing and/or requesting military assistance breaks international law.
This thesis concludes that there is a consensus that Military Assistance on Request (MAR) is a rule of international law. The thesis further concludes that MAR does not violate article 2(4) UN Charter. The thesis then evaluates the suggestion that MAR violates the right to self-determination of people(s) if the military assistance is given during a civil war. Both the Negative Equality Principle (NEP) and the Purpose-based approach are evaluated. The thesis concludes that both NEP and the Purpose-based approach lack support in the sources of international law.
Lastly, the thesis looks at the Breach-based approach, and the suggestion that MAR would be forbidden to governments involved in systemic, gross breaches of peremptory norms of international law. No support in the sources of international law is found for this approach.
The conclusion is therefore that military assistance on the request of a government does not break international law.