The prohibition on the use of force: what its erosion tells us about the international system

Benjamin Petrini

Source Link

The erosion of the norm prohibiting the use of force is the result of shifting conflict dynamics and a changing international order. With multilateralism in crisis, there are questions as to whether the international legal framework on peace and security may be outdated.

Marked by geopolitical competition, trade wars and the highest number of conflicts since 1945, the current international disorder has sparked a debate over the applicability of and respect for international law both during armed conflict and what justifies waging it. This, in turn, has led to questions over the implications for the international system. Recent outright violations of the ius in bello (i.e., international humanitarian law (IHL) or the law of armed conflict, which disciplines conflict parties’ conduct in war) by Israel, Russia and Sudan’s warring parties, for example, have taken place together with increasingly diverging interpretations of the ius ad bellum (i.e., the law that regulates states’ right to wage war). More recently there have been actions taken outside the law, like the United States’ strikes against Venezuela-based organised criminal groups.

The prohibition on the use of force and its resilience over time

Today, both great and middle powers are challenging the prohibition on the use of force, pushing it to the brink of collapse. A core pillar of the post-Second World War international architecture, the prohibition on the use of force as an instrument of national policy was first introduced in 1928 with the Kellogg–Briand Pact. However, it was short-lived as it was not a universal norm and lacked an enforcing institution like the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). After 1945, to wage war was no longer among states’ rights. The UN Charter outlawed the ‘use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State’, including the threat of such use (Article 2(4)), with the exclusion of self-defence (Article 51).

Overall, for nearly 80 years, the prohibition on the use of force has been exceptionally effective, given that no inter-state war between great powers has occurred. Furthermore, the number of sovereign states more than tripled as small states became less subject to rule or untoward influence from powerful ones. The UN Charter’s recognition of the right to self-determination, which partially ushered in decolonisation, also helped achieve this outcome. Banning the use of force was thus instrumental to a new era of cooperation, trade and interdependence that led to unprecedented levels of global prosperity – albeit highly uneven ones.