Three forum responses, 250 words each with bluebook works cited International Law

Three forum responses, 250 words each with bluebook works
cited International Law. The third forum is a response to a specific set of questions, see below.

Forum 1:

For this week post we will be discussing the Internationally-recognized legal bases for the use of force (war), which includes both customary and treaty laws. Additionally, we will examine the authority upon which the United States uses for its Global War on Terror and what the consequences of it are. But first, let’s established a clear and brief definition of war is and what it encompasses in order to provide a strong frame for our answer. War according to the Columbia Encyclopedia is an “armed conflict between states or nations (international war) or between factions within a state (civil war), prosecuted by force and having the purpose of compelling the defeated side to do the will of the victor” [1]. War according to the famous quote of Karl von Clausewitz, is “continuation of political intercourse by other means.”

Under international law, there are two different ways of looking at war; the reasons you fight and how you fight. The reason to fight also known as “Jus ad Bellum” are the laws that defines the legitimate reasons a state or states can engage in war and it focuses on the criteria that render a war “just”. In other words it is concerned with the justification of and limits to the use of force. Under modern legal definitions there is only one “just” reason for a state to exercise its use of force, and that is for self-defense. Under article 2 of the United Nations it states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations” [2]. Furthermore, article 51 of the United Nations establishes that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” [3]. On the other hand, how you fight also known as “Jus in Bello” is the set of laws that come into effect in the use of force operations (war). Its purpose is to regulate how we wage war and to clearly delineate what and who you can attack [4]. Violations of these war laws are punishable under customary international law and international legal instruments, which is why we hear about the International Court of Justice and crimes against humanity.

As for the United States Global War on Terror it relies upon the Senate joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It was created just days after the 11 Sept 2001 attacks. Essentially, it granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” these attacks (terrorism) [5]. This can be problematic because it provides the authority to use force against an idea rather than a specific state. Although the intentions behind this resolution were justified and well intention it granted unpresented authorities to the President and opened up a new chapter in the United States history.

[1] “war.” In The Columbia Encyclopedia, by Paul Lagasse, and Columbia University. 7th ed. Columbia University Press (2017), http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=https://search.c… (last visited Mar 13, 2018).

[2] U.N. Charter art. 2, para.4. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i… (last visited Mar 13, 2018).

[2] U.N. Charter art. 51. http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i… (last visited Mar 13, 2018).

[4] Karma Nabulsi, Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello (1999), http://users.ox.ac.uk/~polf0002/director/publicati… (last visited Mar 14, 2018).

[5] United States Congress, Joint Resolution, Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF] Public Law. 107-40 [S.J. RES. 23], September 18, 2001.

Forum 2:

Historically, the basis of the use of force and to an extent the basis of international law in general, is Just Law Theory attributed to St. Augustine. This theory holds both the standards for the just basis upon which war is entered into and the standards by which the war is conducted. Primarily the standards by which war is considered just in its initiation are predicated upon the requirement that the use of force by a party be defensive in nature, either defense of the nation, or of others.
The United States is able to claim a number of basis upon which it is able to exercise the use of force under international law standards. The United States has made the case in the past (in the case of its action in Grenada) that it is exercising force in the interest of protecting the safety of its citizens. This particular claim may have a degree of merit in the current War on Terror; however it is largely a claim which is beholden to there being an immediate risk to American citizens and loses its validity in the absence of such imminent danger. The United States holds the formal stance that it is operating under the right to self-defense/collective self-defense (stipulated under UN Charter Article 51). This position is reinforced and in fact given specific definition in the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 1368). This resolution was passed with the express purpose of the United States applying military force in mind, in direct response to the aftermath of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. Now there is the ever present question as to the manner in which the seemingly clear preceding sections of the United Nations Charter factor into such matters, particularly as Article 2 rather expressly prohibits the use of force by member states. The United States expanded on the previously established international standard of imminent threat to the national security with the so called “Bush-Doctrine” which identified a standard of pre-emptive war. Specifically, there is the stated need for adapting the anticipatory self-defense to the extremely fluid realities of the modern situation of the world, particularly with an acknowledgement to the capabilities able to be exhibited by non-state actors. A cynical assessment of the case presented here strongly seems to place an emphasis upon the role of the UN Security Council and US domestically developed policy in the actual standards by which use of force, particularly with regards to what may otherwise appear to be aggression on the part of one state or a number of states. This also raises certain areas of concern, namely that the UN (and modern international law by extension) seems to hold the position that that seems very much to the effect that things are not objectively right or wrong but are determined by their popularity among nations. While this logic may seem very much democratic/republican/communitarian in the means by which action is taken, and is considered to be a reasonable means of restraining the abuses of the international standard by individual nations, it never the less has the same detractors that those plurality based governmental systems have on a domestic level, which is to say that power belongs to those most able to sway large groups to their side, whether by rhetoric, appeals to values, or to the particular interests of the representative or those they represent.

1. OPERATIONAL LAW HANDBOOK 1-4 (David H. Lee ed.,U.S. Army Judge Advocates Legal Center & School International and Operational Law Department 1964).

Forum 3 answer these questions:

I want to expand a little more on this idea of customary law that we talked about last week. Isn’t that a valid form of law we could use when discussing use of force beyond the UN Charter and treaties too? When does customary law become customary law? How often and who has to use it before it fits into this category? This can be hard to define. If we justify use of force based on customary law, how much of a custom throughout history must there have been? Does this go all the way back to the stone-age regarding simple self preservation and survival of the fittest?