Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:56:16.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between ius ad bellum and ius in bello

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Christopher Greenwood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rules of international law governing the legality of the use of force by states (ius ad bellum) and the rales by which international law regulates the actual conduct of hostilities once the use of force has begun (ius in bello) have seldom sat happily together. In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, some international lawyers took the view that the development of the ius ad bellum by the Charter of the United Nations had rendered the ius in bello superfluous. This view has, not surprisingly, become somewhat less fashionable of late and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 1977 Protocols to those Conventions, and a number of other treaties bear witness to the continuing interest of the international community in regulating the conduct of warfare. Nevertheless, the suspicion remains that ius in bello should have been absorbed by ius ad bellum, that the two subjects are somehow in competition, so that discussion of the former distracts attention from the more fundamental requirements of the latter or implies a lack of confidence in it. Thus, one letter published in The Times at the height of the Falklands conflict castigated international lawyers for engaging in a debate about the law concerning the treatment of prisoners of war on the ground that they should have been devoting their attention to questioning the legality of the whole operation mounted by the United Kingdom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , October 1983 , pp. 221 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See the discussion in the International Law Commission in 1949, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1949, pp. 51–3.Google Scholar

2. The texts of all the relevant agreements are reproduced in Roberts, A. and Guelff, R. (eds.), Documents on the Laws of War (Oxford, 1982).Google Scholar

3. The Times, 25 May 1982.

4. See the discussion in Brownlie, I., International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford, 1963), pp. 1–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Ibid. pp. 384–401.

6. Lauterpacht, E., ‘The Legal Irrelevance of the State of War’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968), p. 58;Google ScholarSchindler, D., ‘State of War, Belligerency and Armed Conflict‘ in Cassese, A. (ed.), The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict (Naples, 1979), p. 1.Google Scholar For a contrary view, see Baxter, R. R., ‘The Legal Consequences of the Unlawful Use of Force under the Charter’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968), p. 68Google Scholar and Stone, J., Of Law and Nations (Buffalo, New York, 1974), p. 427.Google Scholar

7. Common Article 2, Geneva Conventions, 1949.

8. Compare Brownlie, op. cit., with Bowett, D. W., Self-Defence in International Law (Manchester, 1958).Google Scholar

9. See, e.g., Lillich, R. B. in Moore, J. N. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modem World (Baltimore, 1974), pp. 229–51.Google Scholar

10. Brownlie, op. cit. pp. 338–49, and Bowett, op. cit., esp. pp. 325.

11. Brownlie, op. cit. pp. 66–111.

12. Ibid. p. 434.

13. See the statements made to the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Defence, H.C Debates, vol. 23, cols. 29–30 (4 May 1982) and col. 1030 (13 May 1982).

14. Security Council Resolution of 1 September 1951; U.N. Document S/2322.

15. Security Council Debates of 12–19 June 1981; S/PV. 2280 et seq., reproduced in International Legal Materials, xx (1981), p. 963 et seq. See also Security Council Resolution 487, Ibid, p. 983.

16. Sir Lauterpacht, H., Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, 7th ed. (London, 1952), p. 217Google Scholaret seq.; see also Best, G., Humanity in Warfare (London, 1980), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

17. See, in particular, Lauterpacht, Sir H., ‘The Limits of the Operation of the Law of War’, British Yearbook of International Law, xxx (1953), p. 206Google Scholar and Brownlie, op. cit. pp. 406–8.

18. See, e.g., Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, 1949.

19. Article 1(4). For criticism of this provision, see Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘Wars of National Liberation and War Criminality’ in Howard, M. (ed.), Restraints on War (Oxford, 1979), p. 135.Google Scholar

20. Internal conflicts are subject to a more limited regime, contained in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, 1949, and, for those states which are parties to it, Protocol II of 1977.

21. Paragraph 5 of the Preamble to Protocol I.

22. Best, op. cit. pp. 314–15.

23. Lauterpacht, Sir H., ‘The Limits of the Operation of the Law of War’, British Yearbook of International Law, xxx (1953), p. 206.Google Scholar For Lauterpacht's earlier views, see Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, 7th ed. (London, 1952), pp. 217–22.Google Scholar

24. Lauterpacht, ‘The Limits of Operation’, op. cit. p. 212.

25. Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases {Annual Digest) 15 (1948), p. 632.

26. See, in particular, In re Krupp (United States Military Tribunal), Annual Digest, 15 (1948), p. 620Google Scholar; In re von Leeb (United States Military Tribunal), Ibid. p. 376; In re Zuhlke (Netherlands Special Court of Cassation), Ibid. p. 533; Aboitiz v. Price (United States District Court), 99 F.Supp. 602 and N. V. De Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij v. War Damage Commis sion (Singapore Court of Appeal), [1956] Singapore Law Reports 65.

27. Lauterpacht, ‘The Limits of Operation’, op. cit. pp. 206–8.

28. See the argument advanced by Donelan, M. in ‘Reason in War’, Review of International Studies, viii (1982), p. 53 and pp. 66–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Geneva Prisoners of War Convention, 1949, Article 13; Civilians Convention, 1949, Article 33. On reprisals generally, see Kalshoven, F., Belligerent Reprisals (Leyden, 1973).Google Scholar

30. Rowson, S. W. D., ‘Modern Developments in Prize Law’, British Yearbook of International Law, xxiii (1946), p. 346, and pp. 351–2.Google Scholar

31. Resolution 8 adopted by the Geneva Conference on the Laws of War, 1949.

32. Dias, R. W. M., Jurisprudence, 4th ed. (London, 1976), p. 35et seq.Google Scholar

33. Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, op. cit. pp. 422 and 412.Google Scholar

34. Baxter, R. R., ‘So-called Unprivileged Belligerency’, British Yearbook of International Law, xxviii (1951), p. 323.Google Scholar For a contrary view, see Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘The Status of Combatants and the Question of Guerrilla Warfare’, British Yearbook of International Law, xlv (1971), p. 173.Google Scholar

35. Hague Rules respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907, Article 31.

36. R. R. Baxter, ‘–So-called Unprivileged Belligerency’, op. cit. See also Protocol I of 1977, Article 44(5).

37. They may be executed but not without a trial, Hague Rules, Article 30. Torture is almost certainly unlawful.

38. See, e.g., Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, op. cit. pp. 436–440.Google Scholar

39. Baxter, R. R., ‘The Duty of Obedience to the Belligerent Occupant’, British Yearbook of International Law, xxvii (1950), p. 235.Google Scholar

40. Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, op. cit. p. 202.Google Scholar

41. Annual Digest, 15 (1948), p. 632.Google Scholar

42. Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, op. cit. p. 219.Google Scholar Lauterpacht subsequently changed his views, see ‘The Limits of Operation’, op. cit. p. 226 et seq.

43. See, e.g., The Adelaide Star, Annual Digest, 15 (1948), p. 421.Google Scholar

44. Lauterpacht, , Oppenheim's International Law, vol. II, op. cit. p. 653et seq.Google Scholar

45. Lauterpacht, E., ‘The Legal Irrelevance of the State of War’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1968), p. 58.Google Scholar

46. Schindler, D., ‘State of War, Belligerency and Armed Conflict’, op. cit. p. 13et seq.Google Scholar, and Norton, P. M., ‘Between the Ideology and the Reality: the Shadow of the Law of Neutrality’. Harvard International Law Journal, xvii (1976), pp. 276–7.Google Scholar

47. Ceylon adopted this stance during the 1965 conflict between India and Pakistan.

48. Norton, op. cit. p. 311.

49. Article 2.

50. Geneva Prisoners of War Convention, 1949, Article 127; Civilians Convention, 1949, Article 144.

51. Brownlie, op. cit. p. 195 et seq.

52. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, Cmd. 6964, p. 106.

53. Annual Digest, 15 (1948), p. 376.Google Scholar

54. See, e.g., In re Buck, Annual Digest, 13 (1946), p. 293.Google Scholar

55. Donelan, M., ‘Reason in War’, Review of International Studies, viii (1982), pp. 66–7.Google Scholar