Use of force that is being control by the international law at thispresent time is out of date and changes need to be carried out.
Force ininternational community has been featured as decentralized. Force was used indifferent ways and purposes in order to achieve desired aims. Violence wasaccepted and used to resolve disputes between states, as states could wage warwithout any other states’ consent although it could cause many tragicconsequences. Nonetheless, ‘just and unjust war’ came forth where in theancient Rome and Fetials, fetial law ( ius fetiale ), also known as thereligious law were carried out by a group of priest who were responsible formaintaining peace.
This group of priest has authority over the process ofcreation, application and interpretation of treaties and regulations ondeclaration of war.1Since then, the concept of ‘unjust war’ changed and was further influences byST. Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas and there were three conditions under whicha war could be ‘just’ were stated in Summa Theologica:21. It should be waged bya proper authority, prohibits waging a private war2. It should be wagedfor a just and good purpose, as to restore a good or punish wrong-doing3. It should be wagedwith the right intention for instance, the ultimate restoration of peace This doctrine began to evolve together with the rise of independent statesin Europe. As the numbers of sovereign states grow, wars are no longer defineas the matter of subjective moral judgement but defined as the state of legalaffairs.
Ever since then, states were not in the position to judge any otherstates if they were resorting force justly or unjustly. This system was being supported by the positivismand the Peace of Westphalia 1648 and it survived in Europe until the beginningof twentieth century. The aftermath of such belief had led to the outbreak ofFirst World War.3 Aftermath of the First World War, international relations were rebuilt betweenstates through the establishment of the League of Notions (LON). LON wascreated in 1919 and were playing a role in ensuring that acts of aggressionwould never occur again in the future.
Under article 12 stated that members of`league were not allowed to go to war until three months after the award judgementand had to resort prior to judicial settlement, arbitration or involvement ofthe League Council. However, aggressive states would felt that theseobligations were too onerous and could just withdraw from the league and notwait until three months after the award judgement. This would be unfair to thevictimised state. By the end of the decade, in 1928, France and United State spurredthe treaty Kellogg- Briand pact. This pact has aspired to a total ban of warand rapidly became popular also attracting many instruments ratifications,eventually it could not prevent wars at that time but still it provided one ofthe legal bases for hoilding high-ranking Nazis responsible for crimes against peacein Nuremberg proceedings after the Second World War claimed peace.4 During Second World War, governments felt that the use of force shouldbe outlawed as UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President FranklinRoosevelt had pointed out that states should abandon the use of force. According to the United Nations website: “Coming from the twogreat democratic leaders of the day and implying the full moral support of theUnited States, the Atlantic Charter created a profound impression on theembattled Allies.
It came as a message of hope to the occupied countries, andit held out the promise of a world organization based on the enduring veritiesof international morality.That it had little legalvalidity did not detract from its value. If, in the ultimate analysis, thevalue of any treaty is the sincerity of its spirit, no affirmation of commonfaith between peace-loving nations could be other than important.This document was not atreaty between the two powers. Nor was it a final and formal expression ofpeace aims. It was only an affirmation, as the document declared, “of certaincommon principles in the national policies of their respective countries onwhich they based their hopes for a better future for the world.
“5The tragic event of SecondWorld War once again marked the end of the peaceful international relations andled to the adoption of the United Nations (UN Charter) in 1945. Surely, theworld has changed greatly ever since 1945 UN Charter being created. It did noteliminate what has been ruled but in fact it merely changed it.6 There are a few cases that reveals the inadequacy of international lawin controlling the use of force. For instance, confusions on the American lawprofessors and others on the occasions of the dispatch of America troops toGrenada7and the events in the case of Nicaragua v United States of America, had alsocreated similar confusions.
81 Hendrik Syse and Endre Begby Gregory M. Reichberg, Classic and Contemporary Readings (TheEthics of War, Oxford et al: Blackwell Publishing 2006) 2 TheOpen University, the use of force in international law p.13.Available at : http://www.open.
edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/the-use-force-international-law/content-section-13 Dunning, ‘A History of Political Theories: From Lutherto Montesquieu’4 JanKlabbers, International Law, Second Edition, p238 5Atlantic Charter, recital 8, Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/eight-points-of-the-atlantic-charter-1055176 J.Murphy, THE U.
N AND THE CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL VIOLENCE 16 (1982) 7Abram Chayes, “Greneda Was Illegally Invaded” New York Times, November 15,1983, p. A358 Nicaraguav. United States of America), 1984 I.C.J. 169 (Provisional Measure, Order ofMay 10); Judgement of 26 November 1984 (jurisdiction of Court and admissibilityof the application).