War and law

Hartford Web Publishing is not the author of the documents in World History Archives and does not presume to validate their accuracy or authenticity nor to release their copyright.

The immorality of preventive war
By Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., from the International Council for Human Ecology and Ethnology, [3 September 2002]. One of the astonishing events of recent months is the presentation of preventive war as a legitimate and moral instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Dec. 7, 1941, on which day the Japanese launched a preventive strike against the U.S. Navy, has gone down in history as a date that will live in infamy.
A pattern of aggression
By Kate Hudson, The Guardian, Thursday 14 August 2003. The legality of the war against Iraq remains the focus of intense debate—as is the challenge it poses to the post-second-world-war order, based on the inviolability of sovereign states. That challenge, however, is not a new one. The precursor is without doubt Nato's 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, also carried out without UN support.
Kicking Ass in Afghanistan
By Francis A. Boyle, 6 April 2004. International law only permits the use of force in self-defense, not for retribution; and retribution is never self-defense. Bush made is quite clear that he knew his war against Afghanistan would be illegal, that he did not care about international law and international lawyers, and that his primary motivation for going to war was to kick some asses of Muslims/Asians of Color in Afghanistan.
Risk-Transfer Militarism and the Legitimacy of War after Iraq
By Martin Shaw, Foreign Policy in Focus, 1 July 2004. A renaissance of warfare is one of the most striking features of the early twenty-first century. War, it seems, is not the prerogative of international criminals, but the first resort of the righteous. After September 11, 2001, it was widely believed that might could indeed enforce right.
The Crime of War: From Nuremberg to Fallujah
By Nicolas J. S. Davies, Online Journal, February 10 2005. A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression. Secretary General Annan presumed what the world generally accepts that international law is legally binding on all countries. In the United States, however, international law is spoken of as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests.