On this, the 80th anniversary of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris, 1928), we still find ourselves in a world with wars. Yes, in case you wondered, it is still as binding as ever (with specific exceptions) as law upon the U.S. and most other signatories.
But did this landmark effort to de-legitimize aggressive war actually matter?
Well, it was the basis for charges of "Crimes against Peace" in the post-WWII war crimes trials. It is considered the legal forerunner of the portions of the U.N. Charter (specifically Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraphs 3 and 4) that oblige member states to foreswear the use of military force in conflict resolution.
But...
Open Ground:
This is my way of hauling out the old "It is just a piece of paper" argument that questions whether any treaty matters when leaders of a nation or group are intent upon making war. But how can a State demand compliance with one treaty or agreement (see recent discussions of Russia vs. Georgia and of North Korean negotiations) when there are lots of examples that International "Lawyers" can wave around that says the same States making demands have also ignored agreements? Or is it really such a brutish world that rules that apply to others do not apply to the Strong?
Have at it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have some catching up to do here later and grrr to LDG-- READING!!!
xxx
At first i thought this was about cornflakes!
I this world those who have a near monoply on the use of violence/power are always loved and hated. Much like Police. People complain when they do something to prevent crime, people complain when they don't and crime happens.
I don't think the banning of aggressive war is much use in any case, it can be good in some cases.
Plus if you want to go to war but don't want to have it as an agressive war they can just redefine what defensive is. The biggest problem for a democracy isn't what international law dictates but that agressive wars are normally very unpopular unless they are very fast (and how many times does that really go to plan?). And since all resources are limited one shouldn't stretch out militaryily in an agressive war since other nations may choose to try and take advantage of the impossibility of a large responce (Iran and Russia currently).
@Max
hehheh, yes that would be different.
As to your well considered points that followed:
defining "aggressive war" -- we seem to have a pretty good track record so far of (1) everyone claims some sort of defensive or collective defense motivation at the start of the war; and (2) the winners define the aggressor after the fact. Guess who gets labeled "aggressor"?
You have a very well considered point as to the course by which (aggressive, in particular) war and motivation work in an nation-state where popular opinion matters: Time and popularitity are inversely related, even when your side is "in the right". Self-doubts accellerate the process. Where "international laws" come in that case is as propaganda: They encourage a sense of self-doubt in the warmaking populace, and accellerate the fall in popularity of the war effort.
Anyway, Bravo on your linking duration of conflict into the picture!
Post a Comment