War is dead; we killed it. But in its place, no eternal peace has arisen. In its place, an endless “non-war” has emerged.
Today, I propose discussing a pressing contemporary issue in international law. Since this is an international forum, I think it would be very interesting to hear the positions of participants from different countries. Important: Let’s avoid insults directed at political figures, focus on the facts and legally significant circumstances, and together seek practical steps to resolve the problem.
INTRODUCTION:
Before the creation of the UN (after World War II), war was a legitimate attribute of sovereignty (jus ad bellum). A state could declare war as naturally as terminating a trade agreement. The UN Charter (Article 2(4)) prohibited not “war” as a term, but “the threat or use of force.”
The term International Armed Conflict (IAC) was introduced within the framework of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The essence of the reform was precisely to move away from the subjective recognition of war and introduce certain “objective criteria.” Now, if soldiers from country A cross the border of country B and engage in combat, this is objectively an IAC, even if both sides claim to be “best friends” or conduct “exercises.”
UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) defined the concept of “aggression”:
Article 3 lists actions that qualify as an act of aggression, regardless of whether war has been declared:
- Invasion or attack by armed forces;
- Bombardment or use of weapons against territory;
- Blockade of ports or coasts;
- Sending “armed bands, groups, irregular forces, or mercenaries.”
WHY “WAR” HAS BECOME UNPROFITABLE:
Today, as soon as a state officially declares war, it de jure recognizes the existence of a state of war. In the modern world, this automatically makes the initiator subject to prosecution under the Rome Statute of the ICC.
In contracts, “war” is written into a classic force majeure. This allows for the legal interruption of supplies, the avoidance of penalties, or the termination of long-term obligations. Insurance premiums for shipping, aviation, and logistics in a “war” zone skyrocket or are completely eliminated.
For a state, belligerent status can mean technical default or blocked access to international credit lines (IMF, World Bank).
According to classical international law (the Hague Conventions of 1907), if “war” is declared, other countries are obligated to maintain neutrality. Neutral countries have no right to supply weapons, provide their ports, or extend credit to belligerents. Today, states benefit from receiving military assistance from their allies. If a conflict is recognized as a “war,” the allies would formally become violators of neutrality. This explains why today’s “victims of the aggressor” are reluctant to call a war “war.”
The Geneva Conventions formally apply in any conflict; the lack of an official “war” status allows states to speculate on the status of detainees. For example, calling them “terrorists” or “unlawful combatants” rather than “prisoners of war” in order to deprive them of certain legal guarantees.
As a result, calling a war “war” is shooting oneself in the foot.
WHAT ARE THE POWERFUL DOING?
The “powerful” exploit legal loopholes that allow them to resort to violence while formally remaining within the bounds of international law.
Article 51 of the UN Charter permits force only in the event of an armed attack. Powerful players have expanded this concept: they argue that one cannot wait for an attack, but must strike first if the threat is “imminent.”
The following logic is also often used: If state A claims that terrorists are based on the territory of state B, and state B is unable or unwilling to eliminate them, then state A has the “right” to invade for its own security.
We also all know about “proxy wars,” support for the opposition, defense against ethnic genocide, etc.
Those who wield real military power today use the following terms instead of the word “war”:
- special military operation;
- humanitarian intervention;
- peacekeeping mission;
- counterterrorism;
- preventive self-defense;
- peace enforcement operation.
WHAT TO DO?
I wonder: has the prohibition of war made modern conflicts less defined and less regulated?
War used to be declared, with a beginning and an end… Today, we increasingly encounter situations where military action is waged, territories are destroyed, thousands of people die, yet states avoid legally recognizing the very fact of war. We also see double standards in the application of law at the UN, and yet, even this doesn’t prevent permanent members from vetoing it.
Do you think this whole game and farce in international law really matters to humanity? Is there a pressing need to reform international legal institutions? How can we (really) limit the actions of powerful players? And what solutions do you personally envision?
