Advertisement

International Law Prohibiting the Use of Force

  • Ruchi Anand

Abstract

In a speech delivered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 12 September 2002, President George W. Bush said, “The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment.” In the same speech, Bush raised the question of the relevance of the United Nations when he asked, “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?”2 Where can we find answers to this question?

Keywords

International Relation Security Council Territorial Integrity International Peace Vienna Convention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Christopher C. Joyner, “Review: International Law Is, as International Relations Theory Does?” Review of: Foundations of International Law and Politics by Oona A. Hathaway; Harold Hongju Koh The Politics of International Law by Christian Reus-Smit, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 248–258, p. 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    Samuel P. Orth, “Law and Force in International Affairs,” International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 26, No. 3, April 1916, pp. 339–346, p. 345.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Richard A. Falk, The Declining World Order: America’s Imperial Geopolitics (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 205.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Tom J. Farer, “The Prospect for International Law and Order in the Wake of Iraq,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 621–628, p. 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 8.
    Geoffrey Goodwin, “The Role of The United Nations in World Affairs,” International Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 1, January 1958, pp. 25–37, p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 9.
    Tom J. Farer, “The Prospect for International Law and Order in the Wake of Iraq,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 621–628, p. 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 10.
    Sir Hersch Lauterpacht Quoted in William Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 3rd Edition (Wadsworth Publishers, 2003), p. 455.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Oran R. Young, “The United Nations and the International System,” International Organization, Vol. 22, No. 4, Autumn 1968, pp. 902–922, p. 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 12.
    See Thomas Franck, “Is Anything Left of International law,” Unbound, Vol. 1, No. 59, 2005, pp. 59–63.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Thomas Franck, “Is Anything Left of International Law,” Unbound, Vol. 1, No. 59, 2005, pp. 59–63, p. 61.Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    Thucidides, The Peloponnesian War 331 (412 BCE°) (Crawly trans. 1951). Quoted in Thomas Franck, “Is Anything Left of International Law,” Unbound, Vol. 1, No. 59, 2005, pp. 59–63, p. 60.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    J.L. Brierly, “International Law: Its Actual Part in World Affairs,” International Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 3, July 1944, pp. 381–389, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 17.
    Pitman B. Potter, “Obstacles and Alternatives to International Law,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 53, No. 3, July 1959, pp. 647–651, p. 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    Thomas M. Franck, “What Happens Now? The United Nations After Iraq,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 607–620, p. 608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    According to Oppenheim’s definition, “War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases.” See L. Oppenheim, 2 International Law 202 (7th Edition, by H. Lauterpacht, 1952), quoted in Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994), p. 4.Google Scholar
  16. 22.
    Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 9.Google Scholar
  17. 23.
    Quincy Wright, “The Outlawry of War and the Law of War,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 47, No. 3, Jul., 1953, pp. 365–376, p. 365. H. Kelsen argues that war is legal and lawful and “is permitted only as a reaction against an illegal act, a delict, and only when directed against the State responsible for this delict.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. See Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1952), p. 331.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    Resolution on the Definition of Aggression. Adopted by the UN General Assembly, December 14, 1974. UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), 29. UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 31) 142, UN Doc. A/9631 (1975), reprinted in 13 International Law Materials 710 (1974). In Burns H. Weston, Richard A. Falk and Anthony D’Amato, Basic Documents in International Law and World Order, Second Edition (St Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1990), p. 225.Google Scholar
  20. 27.
    Quincy Wright, “The Concept of Aggression in International Law,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 29. No. 3, July 1935, pp. 373–395 (emphasis added), p. 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 30.
    See C.G. Fenwick, “War Without a Declaration,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 4, October 1937, pp. 694–696, p. 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 31.
    Laws of War: Opening of Hostilities (Hague III); October 18, 1907. Entered into Force: 26 January 1910. See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague03.htm (Last Accessed 24 August 2005). Also See, George Grafton Wilson, “Use of Force and Declaration of War,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1938), pp. 100–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 32.
    Quincy Wright, “When does War Exist?” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1932), pp. 362–368, p. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Also see, George Grafton Wilson, “Use of Force and War”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, April 1932, pp. 327–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 33.
    Also See William J. Ronan, “English and American Courts and the Definition of War,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1937), pp. 642–658;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quincy Wright, “When does War Exist?” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1932), pp. 362–368;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Benjamin A. Most; Harvey Starr, “Conceptualizing ‘War’: Consequences for Theory and Research,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 137–159;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Theodore S. Woolsey, “The Beginnings of War,” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, Vol. 1, First Annual Meeting (1904), pp. 54–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edwin M. Borchard, “War” and “Peace,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1933), pp. 114–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 34.
    See Vincent J. Esposio, “War as a Continuation of Politics,” Military Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1954, pp. 19–26, p. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 35.
    Quincy Wright, “Changes in the Conception of War,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 4, October 1924, pp. 755–767, p. 762. (emphasis added)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 37.
    See L. Oppenheim, 2 International Law 202 (7th Edition, by H. Lauterpacht, 1952), quoted in Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 4.Google Scholar
  33. 38.
    Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 5.Google Scholar
  34. 41.
    Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 6.Google Scholar
  35. 43.
    Quincy Wright, “When Does War Exist?” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, April 1932, pp. 362–368, p. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 45.
    Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self Defense, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994), p. 14.Google Scholar
  37. 46.
    E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Quoted in Hans Kelsen, “Quincy Wright’s A Study of War and the Bellum Justum Theory,” Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 3, April 1943, pp. 208–211, p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 47.
    Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 59. For criterion of Just War, see Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, Basic Books 1977,Google Scholar
  39. Michael Walzer, Arguing About War, Yale University Press, 2004,Google Scholar
  40. Jean Bethke Elshtain, ed. Just War Theory. Washington Square, New York: New York University Press 2002,Google Scholar
  41. Douglas Lackey, The Ethics of War and Peace (NY: Prentice-Hall, 1989).Google Scholar
  42. 48.
    Edwin M. Bochard, “War” and “Peace,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1933, pp. 114–117, p. 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 50.
    Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (Basic Books, 1992), pp. 61–63.Google Scholar
  44. 51.
    Quincy Wright, “The Outlawry of War and the Law of War,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 47, No. 3, Jul., 1953, pp. 365–376, p. 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 56.
    Treaty Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy. Done at Paris, 27 August 1928. Entered into Force, 24 July 1929; for the United States, 24 July 1929. 46 Stat. 2343, T.S. No. 796, 2 Bevans 732, L.N.T.S. 57. In Burns H. Weston, Richard A. Falk and Anthony D’Amato, Basic Documents in International Law and World Order, Second Edition (St Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1990), p. 137.Google Scholar
  46. 57.
    See Note 38. The state was to be the judge regarding its use of self-defense. However, in the case of the Japanese use of force against China in Manchuria 1931, Italy’s use of force against Ethiopia in 1935, and Germany’s occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in 1939, the League of Nations disregarded arguments made justifying the use of force under self-defense. The restriction on the use of self-defense in these cases points to the increasing role of the international community in assessing the merits of the use of self-defense particularly the need for using force in response to force. The merits of self-defense, particularly if it was anticipatory in nature were to be assessed using definitive criterion as laid out by the Caroline case. (See Section on the Caroline incident). See Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 242–249.Google Scholar
  47. 71.
    Oscar Schachter, quoted in William Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law, 3rd Edition (Wadsworth Publishers, 2003), p. 460.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ruchi Anand 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruchi Anand
    • 1
  1. 1.American Graduate School of International Relations and DiplomacyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations