NATO’s Article 5 is consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which recognises that a state that is the victim of an armed attack has the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence, and may request others to come to its assistance. Within the NATO context, Article 5 translates this right of self-defence into a mutual assistance obligation.
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
The Article 5 wording is vague. It states that an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” What is quoted less often is that each member state only has an obligation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.”
In other words, Article 5 does not commit member states to deploy military assets if an ally is attacked. It only commits them to some form of response.
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do
Canada is in NATO. NATO countries are obligated to defend Canada if it is attacked.
I really wouldn’t bank in that.
Most nations are also required to prevent or punish genocide when they recognize it. And yet…
US will likely leave the NATO within the next three years.
Cyprus was in NATO.
Before they were invaded.
It actually wasn’t.
Except when it’s been members, maybe?
how naive can you be?
Article 5 is voluntary. Your statement is not true.
Article 5 isn’t voluntary.
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
For one, NATO votes on whether Article 5 will be invoked. Secondly, Article 5 does not define what type of response shall be rendered. We could find ourselves in a spot where NATO members send only thoughts and prayers.
Thank you for posting primary sources, it’s so rarely done.
“may request others” doesn’t make it sound very obligatory. The actual obligation as written is for each nation to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force”, leaving it up to each nation to decide for themselves what is necessary.
What exactly is Canada going to do to other NATO countries that don’t respond sufficiently? There is no penalty clause.
Funny. You seemed to have completely ignored the part where it finishes with “mutual assistance obligation”. Or maybe you just didn’t read far enough.
Care to try again?
Maybe you’ll believe the Center for European Policy Analysis
But, what do they know anyways?
Did you miss where “mutual assistance” is completely undefined. I’ll stick with my original answer. I’m sure NATO will come right to Canada’s assistance with an angry condemnation of US aggression at the UN.
Laws with no penalty clauses aren’t really laws, they are suggestions. Penalty clauses that can’t be enforced would be worthless anyways. Article 5 is an aspersion, nothing more.
It isn’t voluntary.
Haven’t you learned by now that rules mean nothing? It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says that nations have to do, what matters is what they will do