1

My question is pretty much captured in the title.

The most famous article of the North Atlantic Treaty by far is Article 5, which states that

an armed attack against one or more [NATO parties] shall be considered an attack against them all.

Suppose that one NATO country were to attack another NATO country. Could the attacked country invoke Article 5 and compel the other NATO countries to defend it, including by counterattacking the attacking NATO country?

Improve this question
4
  • 5
    I’m voting to close this question because it is better suited to Politics.SE Commented Apr 28 at 3:05
  • Article 5 doesn't compel anything, I think it merely authorizes. No nation is compelled to repel an attack on themselves, either. Commented Apr 28 at 14:59
  • 1
    On Politics, Is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 if one of its members attacks another member?. Commented Apr 29 at 2:26
  • If you truly could compel anything under the NATO treaty, invoking Article 5 would then also compel the attacking member to assist in the defense against itself. That would, at the very least, result in an interesting situation on the battlefield. Commented Apr 29 at 8:40

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

Legally, yes

Article 5 makes no distinction between an attack by a treaty member or a non-treaty member.

Of course, like all mutual defence treaties, the decision to invoke the treaty and the decision on how to respond are political rather than legal; that is, there is no forum that can compel compliance.

Improve this answer
3

Could the attacked country invoke Article 5 and compel the other NATO countries to defend it, including by counterattacking the attacking NATO country?

No.

Article 5 states [bold italic emphasis mine]:

if such an armed attack occurs, each of [the Parties] […] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking […] such action as it deems necessary […]

Every Party can decide on their own how to assist the attacked Party or Parties, as it deems necessary. This includes not doing anything at all.

The website you linked to further clarifies [bold italic emphasis mine]:

With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.

and

This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute.

So,

  • Nothing can be compelled, every Party is free to decide on their own.
  • Article 5 doesn't say anything about how assistance is to be rendered, it certainly does not mandate a counterattack.

So, any Party can freely choose to counterattack, do something else, or do nothing at all.

When the Treaty was formed, the European Parties very much wanted an automatic military response to be part of the Treaty. In other words, the Europeans wanted the Treaty to be written in such a way that the United States would automatically have to come to their aid. However, the United States didn't want to commit to that, and the wording of Article 5 reflects the United States' wishes of not having to commit to any specific action, or any action at all.

Improve this answer
1
  • My understanding is that Article 5 does impose a requirement to do something, it just leaves it up to the Nato ally to determine what they do. Commented Apr 29 at 9:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.