APA N REVIEW
14 March 2023
Then, simply reflecting such possibilities in a theoretical framework would produce four patterns of the use of weapons and the measures that the use of weapons accompanies: first and second, when the nature of the measures is law enforcement, the use of weapons has either the nature of the use of arms or the use of force; and third and fourth, when the nature of the measures is self-defense,43 th. [...] The qualification of “in principle” signifies that the consideration of the relevant factors in each case is not excluded for deciding the nature of the use of force or the use of arms.47 In other words, by considering the particular factors in individual cases, the nature of the measures and the nature of the use of weapons could be different from each other. [...] The point is that there is not a generally agreed opinion on the meaning of “force.” Furthermore, the reason for the denial of the existence of the room mainly for the use of weapons at a small scale is to avoid the abuse of such room, and the lack of established international practice.55 This would seriously deprive the prohibition, by international law, of the use of force of its significance. [...] Flexibility in the Distinction between the Use of Arms and the Use of Force: The Qualification “in Principle” The presupposition of this article is that the nature of the measures, in principle, decides the nature of the use of weapons that accompanies them. [...] 59 T he factors are, for example, the scale of the violence on both the side of the wrongdoers and entities of the use of weapons, the nature of the wrongdoers involved, the political intents of the wrongdoers, and the legal interests being infringed upon by the violence of the wrongdoers.