Today, politicians rarely refer to military conflicts they start as “war”, often using less direct terms. The reasons for this lie in the foundations of modern international law, which, despite extensive criticism, carry an important function that is often overlooked.
Smoke and Mirrors
We are fortunate to live in a remarkably peaceful time. Based on official reports, no great power has been involved in wars since the end of World War II. This means that for almost fifty years, Russia, the United States, and other key players in international security have fulfilled their responsibility to preserve peace and stability in global relations. But are we happy about it? Barely, because this state of affairs exists only on paper, and if we go beyond the official rhetoric of the leaders of the big countries when they talk about their own states, we see a very different picture.
Indeed, what peace is there when Russian missiles strike Ukrainian cities, Azerbaijan advances into former Armenian lands, and Israel moves troops into Lebanon? Yet there is truth here: since World War II, states rarely declare war. Instead, they adopt labels like “special military operation,” “preemptive strike”, or “peacekeeping” – you pick the one you like most. And the conflicts mentioned above are not exceptions; none of those countries have officially declared war one on another.
The avoidance of the word “war” is not just rhetorical; it reflects the UN Charter’s post-1945 legal ban on using war as a political tool. In the context of the ongoing conflicts, this prohibition seems hollow. However, the current UN framework offers overlooked advantages, with the ban on wars playing a crucial role since it serves as a long-term moral and societal guide. To see it, we must first examine the UN Charter to understand what exactly is discussed.
The Shortest Introduction to International Law
When looking at Article 2 of the UN Charter, we should focus on its fourth chapter that boldly prohibits countries from starting wars.
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.
According to American legal philosopher Larry May, this pivotal shift, along with other developments too extensive to detail here, has created a legal climate in which the waging of war is limited almost entirely to self-defence. A formal declaration signals aggression, violating fundamental legal principles, complicating diplomacy, and weakening the declaring state’s legal standing during and after the conflict. By contrast, the state under attack gains stronger legal and diplomatic leverage. Even in self-defence, declaring war carries risks, as the defending state must demonstrate that its actions meet the criteria of necessity and proportionality, which are closely scrutinised by international courts and the global community.
As is commonly known, politicians easily sidestep these issues by waging wars without formally declaring them — and it is unlikely that the UN is unaware of this. So, many people then rightly ask: What is the point of it all? To answer that question, we need to turn to political philosophy and, oddly enough, the history of duelling.
The Wars and Duels
Not long ago, duelling — two individuals facing off with weapons to settle disputes — was considered civilised. And even though it became illegal in all developed European countries already in the 17th and 18th centuries, people continued to engage in them for quite a while. In fact, the last duel recorded in France took place in 1967 between two politicians, Gaston Defferre and René Ribière. And while it was conducted as a sword fight to first blood, not to the death, the fact that it happened is still impressive. Does this persistence mean banning duels was pointless? According to Quincy Wright, an expert in international law: No. Not at all.
In his article “The Outlawry of War and the Law of War”, he argues that laws like these are not created in hope of achieving any immediate effects but to create a dynamic that will shape societal attitudes and practices in the long-term perspective. Despite the fact that after the ban on duelling was imposed, people continued to organise them further, “In the long run, however, this legislation contributed to developing the attitude in all levels of society that killing in a duel is murder, to greatly reducing its frequency in all countries, and to totally eliminating it in many.” The same logic can be applied to wars within an international context.
LAWS LIKE THESE ARE NOT CREATED IN HOPE OF ACHIEVING ANY IMMEDIATE EFFECTS BUT TO CREATE A DYNAMIC THAT WILL SHAPE SOCIETAL ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES IN THE LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE.
Old Practices and New Hopes
Adopting Wright’s perspective, we can see that the UN Charter seeks to transform societal and governmental attitudes toward war over generations, not to demand the immediate cessation of all hostilities. Just as the laws against duels did not immediately stop them, but eventually led to their decline, so the international legal agreements that aim to outlaw war also expect to influence the political and governmental perceptions of war over generations. This shift is intended to gradually reduce the frequency and acceptance of war as a tool for resolving disputes.
Another and probably the most important aspect of this prohibition is purely ethical. By establishing war as a legally unacceptable act, we create a certain climate that initiates a change in public mentality, gradually reframing war as an illegitimate and criminal act on a moral level. The logic is that if public opinion around the globe were completely against wars, it would be harder for governments to initiate them. Wright provides a resolution initiating the outlawry- of-war movement in the US Congress, which puts it perfectly:
The closest historical analogy to war is the duel, “duellum” and “bellum” both originally meaning war […] It was as late as 1850 before the duel was pronounced murder in the last of our states, and thus outlawed. The practice of dueling is now extinct because it is plain murder under our laws […] The abolition of the institution of war by outlawry will tend to crystallize international public opinion in favor of peace, and to the branding of militarists as criminals.
Drawing on such a vision, we can make the case that the current critics of the UN, though well-meaning in a sense, draw their conclusions due to a lack of historical thinking. While the legal prohibition of war is imperfect and challenged by ongoing conflicts, it establishes principles that guide international behaviour and set expectations for a more peaceful world. And who knows, perhaps in some distant future wars will become as obsolete as duels did in the last few centuries. Unless, of course, we get the idea to allow them to happen again.
