Momentous events of recent years have shown the tremendous potential for developing and applying international law, even in the area that has always presented the greatest challenge to the rule of law—the use of force. The collaborative response by the United States, the Soviet Union, and other major powers to the Iraqi army's invasion and occupation of Kuwait showed unprecedented unity on the relevance of international law, its rules, and its enforceability through decisions of the UN Security Council. What explains this historic convergence of views? What differences remain about the legality of using armed force in the new international order that is emerging with the end of the Cold War? Law and Force in the New International Order offers a timely and comprehensive inquiry into the growing number of situations where the temptation or necessity to use military force confronts the tenets of international law. Distinguished American and Soviet legal scholars and practitioners explore the idea of the primacy of law over politics, the notion held by some that U.S. military force may be applied for the sake of democracy at a time when Moscow has rejected the Brezhnev Doctrine, the tension between collective security and collective self-defense during the Iraq-Kuwait crisis, and the prospects for the use of force being authorized by the United Nations and regional organizations. The contributors also examine the vexing legal issues raised by interventions to protect human rights, to overthrow "illegitimate" regimes, and to combat international terrorism and drug trafficking; the restraints on the use of force promised by new arms control agreements; and the future role of the World Court and other tribunals in preventing or settling disputes involving the threat or use of force.

Who has the right to wage war? The answer to this question constitutes one of the most fundamental organizing principles of any international order. Under contemporary international humanitarian law, this right is essentially restricted to sovereign states. It has been conventionally assumed that this arrangement derives from the ideas of the late-sixteenth century jurist Alberico Gentili. Claire Vergerio argues that this story is a myth, invented in the late 1800s by a group of prominent international lawyers who crafted what would become the contemporary laws of war. These lawyers reinterpreted Gentili's writings on war after centuries of marginal interest, and this revival was deeply intertwined with a project of making the modern sovereign state the sole subject of international law. By uncovering the genesis and diffusion of this narrative, Vergerio calls for a profound reassessment of when and with what consequences war became the exclusive prerogative of sovereign states.

This study proposes a new basis for international law. The author rejects a moral basis for international law, advocating instead the substitution of a functional one. Philosophy, sociology and legal theory are all brought to bear on the question, what law best suits the modern world.

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order, and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. With contributions from international law, history, and international relations, and from Western and non-Western perspectives, this book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present.

This book provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the nature, content and scope of the rules regulating the use of force in international law as they are contained in the United Nations Charter, customary international law and international jurisprudence. It examines these rules as they apply to developing and challenging circumstances such as the emergence of non-State actors, security risks, new technologies and moral considerations.

This book explores the whole of the large and controversial subject of the use of force in international law; it examines not only the use of force by states but also the role of the UN in peacekeeping and enforcement action, and the growing importance of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. Since the publication of the second edition of International Law and the Use of Force the law in this area has continued to undergo a fundamental reappraisal. Operation Enduring Freedom carries on against Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan six years after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Can this still be justified as self-defence in the 'war on terror'? Is there now a wide right of pre-emptive self-defence against armed attacks by non-state actors? The 2006 Israel/Lebanon conflict and the recent intervention of Ethiopia in Somalia raise questions about whether the 'war on terror' has brought major changes in the law on self-defence and on regime change. The 2003 invasion of Iraq gave rise to serious divisions between states as to the legality of this use of force and to talk of a crisis of collective security for the UN. In response the UN initiated major reports on the future of the Charter system; these rejected amendment of the Charter provisions on the use of force. They also rejected any right of pre-emptive self-defence. They advocated a 'responsibility to protect' in cases of genocide or massive violations of human rights; the events in Darfur show the practical difficulties with the implementation of such a duty.