The document discusses the international laws surrounding war, known as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum governs when wars can legally be initiated and recognizes exceptions for self-defense and UN Security Council authorization. Jus in bello governs how wars must be conducted humanely, distinguishing combatants from civilians and requiring proportionality and protection of civilians. While war itself is not inherently illegal, initiating war outside the legal framework or conducting it in violation of jus in bello can be considered illegal under international law.

1. Legality of War
Presenter: Bivek Chaudhary
Section : A
Roll Number : 24
B.A.LL.B

2. When discussing the "legality of war," we are not
asking if war is morally right or wrong, but rather
looking at it through the lens of international law.
We want to understand:
1.Under what circumstances, if any, is initiating a war considered
legal under international law?
This branch of law is called Jus ad Bellum, which translates to "the law
of going to war."

3. 2. Once a war has begun, how should it be conducted
according to international law?
This branch of law is called Jus in Bello, which
translates to "the law of conducting war."

4. War itself is not inherently legal or illegal:
However, certain actions surrounding war, such
as initiating it outside the legal framework or
conducting it in violation of Jus in Bello, can be
considered illegal under international law.

5. Defining War and its Devastating Consequences
It is characterized by extreme violence, destruction, and mortality using regular or irregular
military forces.
Consequences of War:
Loss of life: Millions of people, both military and civilian, lose their lives
during war.
Physical and mental health impacts: War leaves lasting physical and
mental health scars on survivors, including injuries, disabilities, and post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Displacement and migration: Wars often force people to flee their
homes, creating large-scale displacement and refugee crises.

6. •Destruction of infrastructure and the environment: War
destroys infrastructure like homes, schools, and hospitals, and
can cause significant environmental damage.
•Economic and social disruption: Wars disrupt economies,
disrupt social structures, and hinder long-term development.
•Long-term instability and conflict: Wars can destabilize entire
regions and create lasting tensions, fueling future conflicts

7. Under What Circumstances is War Considered Legal?
Under international law, war is generally prohibited, but there are recognized
exceptions:
1. Self-Defense: This is the most widely accepted justification for war. A state can use
force to defend itself against an armed attack that has already occurred or is
imminently threatened. However, the use of force must be proportionate to the
attack and limited to self-defense only.
2. Authorization by the UN Security Council: The UN Security Council has the
power to authorize the use of force in certain situations, such as to maintain
international peace and security. This authorization can be used to address threats
to peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. However, the Security
Council often faces political and diplomatic challenges in reaching consensus on
such decisions.

8. even if a war is initiated legally, it must be conducted
according to the principles of Jus in Bello (the law of
conducting war),
which aims to minimize civilian suffering and protect
fundamental human rights.
Violations of these principles can be considered war
crimes and individuals can be held accountable through
international criminal courts.

9. Jus ad Bellum: The Law of Going to War
Jus ad Bellum, which translates to "the law of going to war," is a
fundamental aspect of international law that governs when and
under what circumstances states are permitted to use force
against other states. While war itself can be devastating, this legal
framework aims to minimize conflicts and promote peaceful
resolutions.
The UN Charter and the Prohibition on the Use of Force:
The cornerstone of Jus ad Bellum is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
This article establishes a general prohibition on the use of force between states, promoting peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

10. this principle states that UN member states
cannot:
•Attack other nations.
•Threaten to attack other nations.
•Violate the territorial integrity or political
independence of other nations.
•Take any other actions that go against the core
purposes of the UN, such as promoting peace
and cooperation.
this principle is not absolute

11. Key Exceptions to the Prohibition:
Despite the general prohibition, the UN Charter recognizes two key exceptions:
 Self-defense against an armed attack: This exception allows a state to use force to
defend itself against an armed attack that has already occurred or is imminent.
However, several crucial parameters define its application:
The use of force must be necessary and proportionate to repel the attack. Excessive or
retaliatory force is prohibited.
The attack must be armed, meaning it involves the use of military force. Non-military
threats, however complex, do not justify the use of armed force under this exception.
Peaceful means of resolving the conflict must have been exhausted or deemed clearly
futile.

12. Authorization by the UN Security Council:
The UN Security Council, as the primary body responsible for maintaining
international peace and security, has the power to authorize the use of
force in specific circumstances. This authorization can take various forms,
including:
•Authorizing the use of force by individual states or groups of states to
address threats to peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression.
•Authorizing the use of force through UN peacekeeping operations under the
direct command and control of the UN

13. Current Controversies in Interpreting Exceptions:
The interpretation and application of these exceptions are highly contested and
generate considerable controversy:
•Defining "armed attack": There is ongoing debate about the exact definition of an
"armed attack" justifying self-defense. Does it require a certain level of severity or
organization? Does it encompass non-state actors like terrorist groups?
•Political considerations in the UN Security Council: The Security Council's
decision-making process is often influenced by political and diplomatic
interests of its member states, making it difficult to reach consensus on authorizing
force, especially when powerful states or their allies are involved.
Can attacks by non-state actors, like terrorist groups, be considered "armed attacks" justifying self-defense by the targeted
state?

14. Jus in Bello: The Law of Conducting War
Jus in Bello, meaning "the law of conducting war," is a separate but
essential branch of international law that governs how a war must
be fought once it has begun. While Jus ad Bellum focuses on
when war is legal, Jus in Bello seeks to minimize human suffering
and protect fundamental human rights even in the midst of armed
conflict.

15. 1. Purpose: Minimizing Suffering and Protecting Civilians:
The fundamental purpose of Jus in Bello is to limit the harmful effects of
war and minimize human suffering during armed conflict
•Minimizing civilian casualties and suffering: This principle aims
to protect civilians from unnecessary harm and ensure that they are not
deliberately targeted.
•Limiting the use of force: This principle emphasizes the need to use
force only against legitimate military objectives and avoid causing
unnecessary destruction or damage to civilian property.
•Ensuring humane treatment of individuals: This principle guarantees
basic rights even for those captured during war, including prisoners of war
and civilians caught in the crossfire.

16. Key Principles of Jus in Bello:
Jus in Bello establishes several key principles that guide how wars should be
conducted:
•Distinction Principle: This principle requires distinguishing between combatants
and civilians. Only combatants, meaning individuals directly participating in
hostilities, can be targeted. Civilians and civilian objects (such as homes, hospitals,
and schools) are immune from deliberate attack.
•Proportionality Principle: This principle emphasizes that the use of force must be
proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Excessive force that causes
unnecessary civilian casualties or damage is prohibited.
A group of smugglers crosses the border from Nepal into India, carrying illegal goods. Indian border guards detect the smugglers and open
fire, causing some injuries.
Proportionality Analysis: Proportional Response:
If the border guards aimed to stop the smugglers using reasonable force, causing only minor injuries and apprehending them, this
would likely be considered proportional.
Disproportionate Response:
However, if the border guards used excessive force, intentionally killing the smugglers or causing severe injuries, it would violate the

17. •Protection of Civilians: This principle goes beyond the distinction
principle.
•It mandates states to take all feasible measures to avoid civilian
casualties and minimize the impact of military operations on
civilians. This includes measures like avoiding indiscriminate
attacks, taking precautions against civilian harm, and allowing
safe passage for civilians seeking to flee conflict zones.
Players (combatants): Those who are actively involved in the game (soldiers in war).
Bystanders (civilians): Those who are not involved in the game (people not fighting in war).
(Players can only target other players) (They should try to avoid accidentally hurting bystanders)

18. War Crimes and Individual Responsibility:
Violations of Jus in Bello principles are considered war
crimes. These include actions like:
•Deliberately targeting civilians.
•Torturing or inhumanely treating prisoners of war or
civilians.
•Using indiscriminate weapons or tactics with a high risk
of civilian casualties.
•Wilfully causing widespread, long-term, and severe
damage to the environment.

19. who commit war crimes can be held accountable through various
mechanisms, including
•International Criminal Court (ICC): Prosecutes for the most serious
crimes of international concern, including war crimes.
•National Courts: Many countries have incorporated war crimes into
their domestic legislation, allowing them to prosecute individuals for war
crimes committed anywhere in the world.
•Ad hoc Tribunals

20. Legality of war in context of Cyber Space
Warfare is no longer just confined to the physical
battlefield.
Nations can now use digital weapons to disrupt
and attack other nations.

21. Cyberwarfare encompasses actions by a nation-state or
international organization to damage or disrupt the computers
or networks of another nation.
Examples include:
• Disrupting financial or communication systems
• Stealing sensitive data or military secrets
• Spreading disinformation or propaganda
• Defacement

22. Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello in Cyberspace
•Jus ad Bellum (Right to Go to War): It becomes difficult to apply since
cyberattacks often don't cause the level of physical destruction associated with
traditional armed attacks. Determining if a cyberattack justifies a traditional military
response is highly debated.
Jus in Bello (Laws of Conducting War):
These laws protect civilians and regulate war conduct. In cyberspace,
civilians and military targets are intertwined. It's hard to separate them and
avoid harming civilians. Also, measuring proportionality (matching the level of
counterattack) is complex in the cyber realm.

23. Challenges of Detection
Attribution Problem:
Cyberattacks can be designed to mask their origin
with great skill. It's extremely difficult to determine
with certainty which country is responsible, making
retaliation and legal actions problematic.

24. The legality of war in cyberspace is murky(
unclear and uncertain ) "
Currently, there's no single, internationally-agreed-upon
set of rules that explicitly states what is and isn't legal in
cyberwarfare.
Traditional laws of war were written for physical conflicts—bombs, soldiers,
battlefields. Cyberspace doesn't fit neatly into these categories, creating
loopholes and confusion.