Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction to the fourth edition
- From the introduction to the first edition
- Table of cases
- Table of treaties
- Table of security council and general assembly resolutions
- List of abbreviations
- Part I The legal nature of war
- Part II The illegality of war
- 3 A historical perspective of the legal status of war
- 4 The contemporary prohibition of the use of inter-State force
- 5 The criminality of war of aggression
- 6 Controversial consequences of the change in the legal status of war
- Part III Exceptions to the prohibition of the use of inter-state force
- Conclusion
- Index of persons
- Index of subject
6 - Controversial consequences of the change in the legal status of war
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Introduction to the fourth edition
- From the introduction to the first edition
- Table of cases
- Table of treaties
- Table of security council and general assembly resolutions
- List of abbreviations
- Part I The legal nature of war
- Part II The illegality of war
- 3 A historical perspective of the legal status of war
- 4 The contemporary prohibition of the use of inter-State force
- 5 The criminality of war of aggression
- 6 Controversial consequences of the change in the legal status of war
- Part III Exceptions to the prohibition of the use of inter-state force
- Conclusion
- Index of persons
- Index of subject
Summary
The profound change that has gripped the international legal system, as a result of the prohibition of the use of inter-State force and the criminalization of aggressive war, raises searching questions in regard to a number of concepts and institutions rooted in the obsolete axiomatic postulate that States are free to commence hostilities at will. It is true that, in some measure, the international community has already adjusted itself to the new legal environment. This is manifest, for instance, in the current invalidity of peace treaties dictated by the aggressor to the victim of aggression (see supra, Chapter 2, B, (a), iii). But modification of time-honoured doctrines encounters intractable difficulties in many areas.
The need for adaptation of the law to the present status of inter-State force is adumbrated against the silhouette of the antiquated perception of the two antagonists in war (aggressor and victim) as intrinsically equal in legal standing. It is noteworthy that, as pointed out already by Grotius, the Latin word bellum is derived from the more ancient term duellum. For centuries, international law treated war in the same manner that domestic law used to deal with the duel. War, like a duel, was viewed with toleration. The parity of the contenders was taken for granted, and the sole concern was about adherence to criteria of ‘fair play’. Yet, just as the duel is no longer permitted by national legal systems, war is now forbidden by international law.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- War, Aggression and Self-Defence , pp. 151 - 172Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005