THE INTERNATIONAL
   LAWS OF WAR
The “Just War” tradition
   was developed in
   medieval Europe.

Its theorists were thinking
   about this sort of war:
...rather than this
    sort of war:
In fact, its origins go
  back as far as the
  writings of some
 ancient Greeks and
      Romans.

 This kind of war:
One of the most famous
theorists of “just war” was
        this fellow -

      Hugo Grotius.

   He was a jurist from
  Holland, born in 1583.
Grotius lived to see two
horrible wars - the Eighty
    Years War between
 Holland and Spain, and
   the Thirty Years War
  between Catholic and
  Protestant nations in
         Europe.

(This is a painting from the Thirty
Years’ War is called the Miseries of
               War.)
This made him want to
write this book about war
      and religion -
(“De jure belli ac pacis” means “On
    the law of war and peace”)


The basic argument was
  that some wars are
       justifiable.
The idea of a just war
 was heavily influenced
by the codes of chivalry -

Think knights in shining
   armour, behaving
honourably, protecting
 vulnerable damsels in
  distress and so on...
The ideas about the justice of war are divided into three
                          parts:
1.
                      jus ad bellum
ideas are about the circumstances under which it’s ok to
                        go to war
Jus ad bellum rules are
aimed at the people who
can make that decision -
      heads of state.

Back when Hugo Grotius
 was writing, that might
have meant this guy, King
  Louis XIII of France,
  known as “the Just”.
More recently, jus ad bellum
principles are speaking to
  people like this chap:

George W Bush, was President of the
USA and “commander in chief” when
  the US went to war against Iraq.
2. Jus in bello ideas describe
 the sort of behaviour that
  is justifiable during a war
3. Jus post bellum talks
about the proper way to
go about ending a war, for
 example, in drawing up
       peace treaties.
The principles of “Just War”
are not independently legal.

 Still, they are fundamental
 to the modern laws on the
          use of force.

“Jus ad bellum” and “Jus in
  bello” continue to be the
ways we categorise war law.
A famous example of “Jus in
 bello” are the rules of the
    Geneva Convention.
This course is about the legality of going to war - that is,
                  “jus ad bellum” law.
The way we - and our
military and civilian leaders,
and the lawyers who frame
  our international laws -
    think about war has
          changed.

 Crucially, after the horrors
of WWI, the western leaders
 decided that war was, as a
      rule, a bad idea.
So, in 1928, the Kellogg-
Briand Pact outlawed war.

It remains a binding treaty    Not this guy:
 for all the 63 states which
  signed it into existence.

    That’s this guy:
Clearly, the new law
didn’t quite work...
Sometimes, after all, needs
         must.
Which is perhaps why, the
United Nations Charter...
  (which is the effectively the
constitution of the UN, the main
guardian of international law in
       the modern order)


   ...starts with a stern
prohibition against war...
    and then provides
 guidance on exceptions
      under Article 51
This course is primarily interested in how going to
 war can be ‘legal.’ What are the exceptions? Who
 decides when they apply, and by what process?
Who knows, maybe this
course will help you pass
      your exams...
Or it might just help you
    sound clever at a
   pretentious dinner
         party...
In fact, that’s why we’re
  gearing up to address a
question which you clever,
    curious people have
  probably thought about
 and talked about before...
Was the invasion of Iraq in
       2003 legal?
(As a special treat, those of
   you who are that way
 inclined can give us your
    two cents on level 8)
Meantime... guess what?
You’re already one level
         down!


   Level 2, anyone?

Going to War - Level 1

  • 1.
    THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF WAR
  • 2.
    The “Just War”tradition was developed in medieval Europe. Its theorists were thinking about this sort of war:
  • 3.
  • 4.
    In fact, itsorigins go back as far as the writings of some ancient Greeks and Romans. This kind of war:
  • 5.
    One of themost famous theorists of “just war” was this fellow - Hugo Grotius. He was a jurist from Holland, born in 1583.
  • 6.
    Grotius lived tosee two horrible wars - the Eighty Years War between Holland and Spain, and the Thirty Years War between Catholic and Protestant nations in Europe. (This is a painting from the Thirty Years’ War is called the Miseries of War.)
  • 7.
    This made himwant to write this book about war and religion - (“De jure belli ac pacis” means “On the law of war and peace”) The basic argument was that some wars are justifiable.
  • 8.
    The idea ofa just war was heavily influenced by the codes of chivalry - Think knights in shining armour, behaving honourably, protecting vulnerable damsels in distress and so on...
  • 9.
    The ideas aboutthe justice of war are divided into three parts:
  • 10.
    1. jus ad bellum ideas are about the circumstances under which it’s ok to go to war
  • 11.
    Jus ad bellumrules are aimed at the people who can make that decision - heads of state. Back when Hugo Grotius was writing, that might have meant this guy, King Louis XIII of France, known as “the Just”.
  • 12.
    More recently, jusad bellum principles are speaking to people like this chap: George W Bush, was President of the USA and “commander in chief” when the US went to war against Iraq.
  • 13.
    2. Jus inbello ideas describe the sort of behaviour that is justifiable during a war
  • 14.
    3. Jus postbellum talks about the proper way to go about ending a war, for example, in drawing up peace treaties.
  • 15.
    The principles of“Just War” are not independently legal. Still, they are fundamental to the modern laws on the use of force. “Jus ad bellum” and “Jus in bello” continue to be the ways we categorise war law. A famous example of “Jus in bello” are the rules of the Geneva Convention.
  • 16.
    This course isabout the legality of going to war - that is, “jus ad bellum” law.
  • 17.
    The way we- and our military and civilian leaders, and the lawyers who frame our international laws - think about war has changed. Crucially, after the horrors of WWI, the western leaders decided that war was, as a rule, a bad idea.
  • 18.
    So, in 1928,the Kellogg- Briand Pact outlawed war. It remains a binding treaty Not this guy: for all the 63 states which signed it into existence. That’s this guy:
  • 19.
    Clearly, the newlaw didn’t quite work...
  • 20.
  • 21.
    Which is perhapswhy, the United Nations Charter... (which is the effectively the constitution of the UN, the main guardian of international law in the modern order) ...starts with a stern prohibition against war... and then provides guidance on exceptions under Article 51
  • 22.
    This course isprimarily interested in how going to war can be ‘legal.’ What are the exceptions? Who decides when they apply, and by what process?
  • 23.
    Who knows, maybethis course will help you pass your exams...
  • 24.
    Or it mightjust help you sound clever at a pretentious dinner party...
  • 25.
    In fact, that’swhy we’re gearing up to address a question which you clever, curious people have probably thought about and talked about before...
  • 26.
    Was the invasionof Iraq in 2003 legal?
  • 27.
    (As a specialtreat, those of you who are that way inclined can give us your two cents on level 8)
  • 28.
    Meantime... guess what? You’realready one level down! Level 2, anyone?