‘Use of force’ has been the most debatable topic in international law. The principle has been practiced in international relations for a long time and is directly associated with the sovereignty of states and states employ all possible ways to protect it. The international community needs to limit and regulate the use of force in order to secure harmonious and mutually beneficial co-existence. Lack of mutual trust among the nations has been one of the foremost reasons for ‘use of force’. The UN Charter is the primary instrument guiding the use of force in international relations. There are two views for the ‘use of force’ in international relationsrestrictive and permissive. Under the UN Charter, as per the restrictive view, there is a total ban on the use of force except for two cases, i.e selfdefence under Article 51 and enforcement action under Chapter VII of Charter. As per the permissive view, States are allowed to use force under situations like regime change or for humanitarian intervention. The United States of America in its war against terrorism has adopted preemptive self-defence policy. The present paper highlights the current legal regime for the use of force and seeks to analyse the recent developments and their influence on the legality of use of force by states. It tries to find an answer to what are the boundaries for ‘use of force’ under the UN Charter. An attempt has also been made to discuss in brief the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

Keywords: Use of Force; Pre-Emptive Force; Armed-Attack; Humanitarian Intervention Self-Defence.