Brandon9000 wrote:When I said that war has usually been considered inherently extra-legal, I was responding to [the assertion that the war on Iraq was illegal], and I meant that throughout history, countries which have conducted wars have rarely attempted to satisfy any international laws or treaties which regulate when they may or may not go to war, even as we did not seek any such foreign permission slip to declare WW 2."
To begin with, whether or not we did not seek foreign permission to declare war in WW2, whether countries have generally sought to satisfy international covenants when declaring war, and whether or not the declaration of war is subject to provisions of international law, and thus "extra-legal", are discrete points, which you have muddled.
In WW2 our declaration of war was firmly within the boundaries of the established conventions of international law. International law (which is not a single straightforward entity, by the way) did not have a provision saying that any country must seek the approval of an international tribunal prior to declaring war. In respect to international law, therefore, our declaration was not "extra-legal".
Indeed, a declaration of war itself, as opposed to say, a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, is an act to satisfy international conventions of war.
Further, throughout 99.9% of history international law did not have a provision saying that any country must seek the approval of an international tribunal prior to declaring war. Therefore, with respect to international law "throughout 99.9% of human history" the declaration of war has not "been recognized as inherently extralegal."
Further, throughout a great portion of history, nations have sought the permission of an international tribunal to wage war, namely the Apostolic See.
So what?
We are active participants and supporters of the UN. We're not supposed to be doing what we're doing, whether or not anyone can stop us from doing it; it's the whole point of the security council. We would condemn another country for doing what we are doing.
Cycloptichorn
Declaration of War
War is not simply a matter of physical force. It involves moral and legal considerations, both playing significant roles in the process of initiating war. Conflict's nonmaterial aspects depend heavily on rituals. War is a sufficiently uncertain process that few individuals and fewer societies feel comfortable engaging in it without all the help, material and otherwise, they can solicit. A declaration of war is among the most common means of invoking higher powers, both by its contents and in its own right. Cultures as discrete as those of American Indians, Pacific islanders, and the great powers of twentieth-century Europe shared a pattern of initiating hostilities through some kind of formal process. Successive Chinese empires couched aggrandizement on various frontiers in terms of violations of moral or legal requirements to pay homage and tribute to the Middle Kingdom. Greek warfare, when waged against other Greeks, could be extremely cruel, yet increasingly the convention governing such conflicts was that a state of war should be formally declared before opening hostilities.
Rome too believed war needed justification. Against organized states, Rome usually began with formal declarations of intent. Against barbarians, however, such niceties were deemed unnecessary?-and it was in that context that much Christian thinking on the subject of war developed. Augustine, believing as he did that peace was not possible in a fallen world, spoke for increasing numbers of Christian theorists in the late empire when he justified wars fought to secure justice and order. Such wars had to be declared and conducted by a legitimate ruler or ruling body. Acting in that capacity, individuals became instruments of divine will while those who obeyed them were freed of all responsibility for the nature of their cause.
The Germanic peoples who moved into western Europe had their own independent notions of war as a judicial process in which the gods (or later, God) oversaw the right. Sometimes rulers themselves or their designated champions would settle an issue; sometimes major battles were fought by mutual agreement. In either case, causes of offense and claims for redress were expected to be clearly stated beforehand. Often as well, general declarations would be supplemented by direct gestures such as sending heralds to bear defiance to the enemy.
Christian and German cultures combined for half a millennium to sustain both the legitimacy of war and the need for its formal initiation. Nor was the process confined to states. Individual aristocrats followed the same pattern of declaring war on enemies in a "feud." By the sixteenth century, however, going to war without government sanction brought with it the risk of outlawry: private warfare survived only in areas like Germany and Scotland, where central authority was weak or nonexistent. On the other hand, sovereign bodies had not only the right to make war, but also by the seventeenth century virtual carte blanche in that regard. Although formal declarations remained important, the fast-developing body of international law also recognized significant exceptions: savages, infidels, and heretics. European expansion into Asia, Africa, and the Americas combined with the Catholic and Protestant reformations in providing ample opportunity to test the limits of these categories. Against the Dutch and the English, Spanish theorists indulged in a rhetoric of blood regularly translated into action. In New England, outnumbered and frightened settlers applied to American Indians rules developed in Queen Elizabeth's Irish wars?-which usually meant there were no rules.
Particularly as their subjects clashed informally outside of Europe, the major powers also agreed, tacitly or officially, not to regard such conflicts as causes of war. Whatever happened "beyond the line" was the affair of individuals and private trading companies.
This did not mean abandonment of the principle that a just war must be formally initiated. In the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War,such rough-and-ready rules of thumb gave way to an increasing emphasis on formal, public observations. Louis XIV set the pattern by putting lawyers to work unearthing and developing French territorial, commercial, or political rights. This pattern was copied throughout Europe: it became important for governments to justify policies. Frederick the Great cloaked his invasion of Silesia in 1740 with at least a fig leaf of legality. Revolutionary France emphasized ideology in justifying war, but was never quite willing to dispense entirely with formalities. Napoleon too began even his most open aggressions with elaborate statements of their justification.
The continued development of international law as the nineteenth century progressed made declaring war an even more attractive option, at least in theory. The exercise of force in peacetime not only required sudden, overwhelming need with no time for deliberation, but the force used by the aggrieved party was required to be proportional to the threat posed by the attack. By declaring war, a state could free itself from these and similar restrictions. At the same time states could still fight one another without a formal declaration of hostilities, as the United States demonstrated from 1797 to 1801 in the Quasi War with France. As Otto von Bismarck discovered in the Franco-Prussian War,moreover, even a declared war fought within accepted ground rules might defeat its own purposes by destroying the opposing government, leaving no one with whom to make peace.
Despite such contretemps, nations remained reluctant to accept the final logic of international anarchy. The Hague Convention of 1907 required "formal and explicit warning" of the intent to open hostilities. Even Adolf Hitler began his wars by the rules until Operation Barbarossa,in which he invaded the Soviet Union without warning. Japan took extreme pains to ensure, however, vainly, that its "final note" reached the intended recipients before the first bombs struck Pearl Harbor. The end result was to make declarations of war seem nothing but fig leaves for aggression.
After 1945, paradoxically, the United Nations charter forbade states to use or threaten force against other states without UN sanction, even limiting the right of self-defense. This too contributed significantly to the decline of formal declaration of war. In Vietnam,the U.S. government argued that such declarations of war now tended to imply the need to destroy the enemy totally?-which it did not advocate in this case. In other cases, notably the Arab-Israeli conflicts, wars remained formally undeclared because one side did not officially recognize the other. The result has been a growing tendency for international law to adjust to pragmatic realities by rendering the right to use force almost independent of the existence of a formal state of war. Such a state of anarchy would have shocked the Greeks and bodes ill for stability in the future.
Dennis E. Showalter
Geoffrey Best, Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflict (1980); Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (1975).
Bishop Adrian, servant of the servants of God, sends to his dearest son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolic benediction. Laudably and profitably enough thy magnificence thinks of extending thy glorious name on earth, and of heaping up rewards of eternal felicity in Heaven, inasmuch as, like a good catholic prince, thou dost endeavour to enlarge the bounds of the church, to declare the truth of the Christian faith to ignorant and barbarous nations, and to extirpate the plants of evil from the field of the Lord. And, in order the better to perform this, thou dost ask the advice and favour of the apostolic see. In which work, the more lofty the counsel and the better the guidance by which thou dost proceed, so much more do we trust that, by God's help, thou wilt progress favourably in the same; for the reason that those things which have taken their rise from ardour of faith and love of religion are accustomed always to come to a good end and termination.
There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other islands which Christ the Sun of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church. Wherefore, so much the more willingly do we grant to them that the right faith and the seed grateful to God may be planted in them, the more we perceive, by examining more strictly our conscience, that this will be required of us.
Thou hast signified to us, indeed, most beloved son in Christ, that thou dost desire to enter into the island of Ireland, in order to subject the people to the laws and to extirpate the vices that have there taken root, and that thou art willing to pay an annual pension to St. Peter of one penny from every house, and to preserve the rights of the churches in that land inviolate and entire. We, therefore, seconding with the favour it deserves thy pious and laudable desire, and granting a benignant assent to thy petition, are well pleased that, for the enlargement of the bounds of the church. for the restraint of vice, for the correction of morals and the introduction of virtues, for the advancement of the Christian religion, thou shouldst enter that island, and carry out there the things that look to the honour of God and to its own salvation. And may the people of that land receive thee with honour, and venerate thee as their master; provided always that the rights of the churches remain inviolate and entire, and saving to St. Peter and the holy Roman Church the annual pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, thou dost see fit to complete what thou hast conceived in thy mind, strive to imbue that people with good morals, and bring it to pass, as well through thyself as through those whom thou dost know from their faith, doctrine, and course of life to be fit for such a work, that the church may there be adorned, the Christian religion planted and made to grow, and the things which pertain to the honour of God and to salvation be so ordered that thou may'st merit to obtain an abundant and lasting reward from God, and on earth a name glorious throughout the ages.
Whereas in our times the holy church has been afflicted beyond measure by tribulations through having to join in suffering so many oppressions and dangers, we have so striven to aid it, with God's help, that the peace which we could not make lasting by reason of our sins, we should to some extent make binding by at least exempting certain days. In the year of the Lord's incarnation, 1085, in the 8th indiction, it was decreed by God's mediation, the clergy and people unanimously agreeing: that from the first day of the Advent of our Lord until the end of the day of the Epiphany, and from the beginning of Septuagesima until the 8th day after Pentecost, and throughout that whole day, and on every Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, until sunrise on Monday, and on the day of the fast of the four seasons, and on the eve and the day itself of each of the apostles-moreover on every day canonically set apart, or in future to be set apart for fasting or for celebrating,-this decree of peace shall be observed. The purpose of it is that those who travel and those who remain at home may enjoy the greatest possible security, so that no one shall commit murder or arson, robbery or assault, no man shall injure another with a whip or a sword or any kind of weapon, and that no one, no matter on account of what wrong he shall be at feud, shall, from the Advent of our Lord to the 8th day after Epiphany, and from Septuagesima until the 8th day after Pentecost, presume to bear as weapons a shield, sword, or lance-or, in fact, the burden of any armour. Likewise on the other days-namely, on Sundays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and on the eve and day of each of the apostles, and on every day canonically fixed, or to be fixed, for fasting or celebrating,-it is unlawful, except for those going a long distance, to carry arms; and even then under the condition that they injure no one in any way. It, during the space for which the peace has been declared, it shall be necessary for any one to go to another place where that peace isn't observed, he may bear arms; provided, nevertheless, that he harm no one unless he is at. tacked and has to defend himself. Moreover, when he returns, he shall lay aside his weapons again. If it shall happen that a castle is being besieged, the besiegers shall cease from the attack during the days included in the peace, unless they are attacked by the besieged, and are obliged to beat them back.
And lest this statute of peace be violated with impunity by any person, the following sentence was decreed by all present: If a freeman or a noble shall have violated it- that is, if he shall have committed murder, or shall have transgressed it in any other way,-he shall, without any payments or any friends being allowed to intervene, be expelled from within his boundaries, and his heirs may take his whole estate; and if he hold a fief, the lord to whom it belongs shall take it. But if, after his expulsion, his heirs shall be found to have given him any aid or support, and shall be convicted of it, the estate shall be taken from them and shall fall to the portion of the king. But if he wish to clear himself of the charges against him, he shall swear with 12 who are equally noble and free. If a slave kill a man he shall be beheaded; if he wound him he shall have his right hand cut off; if he have transgressed in any other way-by striking with his fist, or a stone, or a whip, or any thing else-he shall be flogged and shorn. But if the accused (slave) wish to prove his innocence, he shall purge himself by the ordeal of cold water: in such wise, however, that he himself, and no one in his place, be sent to the water. But if, fearing the sentence that has been passed against him, he shall have fled,-he shall be forever under the bane. And wherever he is heard to be, letters shall be sent there announcing that he is under the bane, and that no one may hold intercourse with him. The hands may not be cut off of boys who have not yet completed their 12th year; if boys, then, shall transgress this peace, they shall be punished with whipping only. It is not an infringement of the peace if any one order a delinquent, slave, or a scholar, or any one who is subject to him in any way, to be beaten with rods or with whips. It is an exception also to this statute of peace, if the emperor shall publicly order an expedition to be made to seek the enemies of the realm, or shall be pleased to hold a council to judge the enemies of justice. The peace is not violated if, while it continues, the duke, or other counts or bailiffs, or their substitutes hold courts, and lawfully exercise judgment over thieves and robbers, and other harmful persons. This imperial peace has been decreed chiefly for the security of all those who are at feud; but not to the end that, after the peace is over, they may dare to rob and plunder throughout the villages and homes. For the law and judgment that was in force against them before this peace was decreed shall be most diligently observed, so that they be restrained from iniquity;-for robbers and plunderers are excepted from this divine peace, and, in fact, from every peace. If any one strive to oppose this pious decree, so that he will neither promise the peace to God nor observe it, no priest shall presume to sing a mass for him or to give heed to his salvation; if he be ill, no Christian shall presume to visit him, and, unless he come to his senses, he shall do without the Eucharist even at the end. If any one, either at the present time or among our posterity forever, shall presume to violate it, he is banned by us irrevocably. We decree that it rests not more in the power of the counts or centenars, or any official, than in that of the whole people in common, to inflict the above mentioned punishments on the violators of the holy peace. And let them most diligently be on their guard lest, in punishing, they show friendship or hatred, or do anything contrary to justice; let them not conceal the crimes of any one, but rather make them public. No one shall accept money for the redemption of those who shall have been found transgressing. Merchants on the road where they do business, rustics while labouring at rustic work-at ploughing, digging, reaping, and other similar occupations,-shall have peace every day. Women, moreover, and all those ordained to sacred orders, shall enjoy continual peace. In the churches, moreover, and in the cemeteries of the churches, let honour and reverence be paid to God; so that if a robber or thief flee thither he shall not at all be sieved, but shall be besieged there until, induced by hunger, he shall be compelled to surrender. If any one shall presume to furnish the culprit with means of defence, arms, victuals, or opportunity for flight, he shall be punished with the same penalty as the guilty man. We forbid under our bane, moreover, that any one in sacred orders, convicted of transgressing this peace, be punished with the punishments of laymen-he shall, instead, be handed over to the bishop. Where laymen are decapitated, clerks shall be degraded; where laymen are mutilated, clerks shall be suspended from their positions; and, by the consent of the laity, they shall be afflicted with frequent fasts and flagellations until they shall have atoned. Amen.
