A/HRC/44/38 through the combined effects of its condemnations and relevant practices and States’ opiniones juris, including as expressed in Council debates, certain practices pertaining to the Council may contribute to the emergence, crystallization or consolidation of a customary rule of general international law.140 And, in certain circumstances, the silence of States has the potential to affect the formation, identification, modification and termination of certain doctrines.141 Such conditions, however, are far from being met in Article 51 communications. 78. The theoretically possible modalities for modifying international law are largely inadmissible with respect to broad claims for resorting to force couched in terms of exercising the right to self-defence. Furthermore, in part because States are not made aware contemporaneously and systematically of “Article 51 communications”, their purported silence cannot be considered deliberate or even conscious, let alone evidence of a genuine belief.142 As a legal adviser to the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations in New York has explained, the lack of transparency in Security Council procedures is largely responsible for the silence of many Member States, which “thus cannot be considered as acquiescence regarding any novel interpretations of Art. 51 of the UN Charter on the use of force against terrorists in a third country … Most UN Member States are left in the dark.”143 79. Nevertheless, despite a strong presumption that silence alone does not constitute acceptance of a position, for several reasons the prevailing situation of silence in the face of illegitimate self-defence claims is highly unsatisfactory: (a) First, the silence of many seems to have the unfortunate effect of amplifying the voices of the few who seek to expand the grounds for resorting to force. Their disproportionate influence is certainly reflected in legal scholarship; (b) Second, State silence is open to wide interpretation, misinterpretation and misunderstanding, particularly by the State initiating the action; (c) Third, as members of the international community, especially in a period marked by attempts to generate normative volatility, weakening strict requirements on selfdefence, States have a responsibility to secure legal stability by speaking up;144 (d) Fourth, the gravity of the matters at stake – implicating as they do fundamental norms of the contemporary international legal system, the violation of which affects all States – should compel States to speak. 80. Silence, albeit through convoluted and indirect routes, can still ultimately influence norms and their development. Amid the legal complexities, silence can be dangerous, not least because it is ambiguous. Explicit agreement with an action is a signal, as is direct disagreement. But what signal is conveyed when nothing is said? Politics through silence and silence because of politics may be lethal. Silence amounts to turning a blind eye to unlawful killings. 81. Of course, States cannot decide whether to speak out if they do not realize that a response may be warranted. All States should be made aware – directly, reliably and systematically – of communications submitted to the Security Council regarding the use of force and targeted killings, and of the Council’s and other States’ responses (or lack thereof). Multilateral discussions on matters of grave international concern should be revived and stimulated. 140 141 142 143 144 General Assembly (Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, June 2017). Lewis, Modirzadeh and Blum, Quantum of Silence, citing Olivier Corten, p. 47. Ibid., p. 80. Starski, “Silence within the process of normative change and evolution of the prohibition on the use of force”, p. 21. www.justsecurity.org/63415/an-insiders-view-of-the-life-cycle-of-self-defense-reports-by-u-nmember-states/. Starski, “Silence within the process of normative change and evolution of the prohibition on the use of force”, p. 125. 19