TThe principle that prohibits the use of force is a major element in the international system that is based mainly on cooperation between States and collective security. This principle has always been of a relative nature, in fact, the contemporary public international law has noted more exceptions to this principle which reduces the magnanimity of the principle. Until the early twentieth century, the use of force was the means of regulating interstate relations, the use of war was to establish an attribute of sovereignty. But following the horrors of the World Wars, there was the emergence of the importance of peace that imposed itself on the countries of the world.
Thus, the ‘jus ad bellum' (Right to wage war) was created by the United Nations. This is a set of rules that need to be consulted before a country can think of going to war.
Tags - international laws on war, United Nations 'Right to wage war'
[...] However, this qualification is essential because it is through this qualification that the law to self defense will be able to open. The judgment of 27 June 1986 by the International Court of Justice is a perfect example: Nicaragua c / USA. Moreover, the aggression of eligibility for self-defense has forgotten a very important category of authors, and gives a real problem in today's global conflict: acts of aggression from a private person. It must also be remembered that if the world changes, terrorist attacks and the concept of aggression should also be expanded. [...]
[...] The ban on the use of force in International Law General prohibition of use of force is a major element of the international system based mainly on cooperation between States and collective security. This principle has always been a relative; in fact, the contemporary public international law admits more exceptions to the latter, which reduces the size of a vital principle yet today. Until the early twentieth century, the use of force was the means of regulating interstate relations, the use of war constituting an attribute of state sovereignty. [...]
[...] Next is the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928, which was signed by almost all States of the International Society. It has long been characterized as the precursor of the UN Charter since it is the first to assert the prohibition of the use of armed force on the occasion of international dispute settlement. But we have said, denial is truly free in 1945, just after the Second World War by Article 2 and which states that "members shall refrain in their international relations, resorting to the threat or use of force or by the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” II- The concept of aggression in international law It is through this notion that the mechanism of use of force will start. [...]
[...] It is therefore vital to define it as a whole. Aggression can be described as the internationally wrongful act constituted by the use of armed violence against the state. There are currently many discussions around this problematic notion. Thus Robert Ago had proposed in its draft articles of the International Law Commission to criminalize this concept, but this seemed and still seems quite complex even today. How could one describe a state of criminal and how can we punish him? [...]
[...] A reaction or an attack that was admitted to the morals and nothing appeared criticizing. But following the world wars and their atrocities, the States decided to counteract this solution, to go in reverse, to a ban on the use of armed force, in some disputes whatsoever. However, in the United Nations Charter we retain to keep it as "protective charter or charter for peace". In 1907, the Hague Convention decided not to use armed force to settle disputes between states of debt. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
