Although International Law makes some distinction between a just and an unjust war, state practice until the conclusion of World War I had generally disregarded that distinction and maintained war as a legitimate means of resolving disputes or increasing the power of the state. Recognized methods for resolving disputes peacefully did exist, however; under the Covenant of the League of Nations, for example, member states promised to utilize such methods before resorting to war.
Formal rejection of war as a means of national policy for settling controversies came in 1928 with the conclusion of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Titled the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War, the Kellogg-Briand Pact obligated signatories to abandon force in favor of negotiation, Arbitration, mediation, or other methods of settling disputes peacefully. Although the signatories renounced war with each other, the Kellogg-Briand Pact still permitted war for Self-Defense, for collective enforcement of international obligations, between
signatories and nonparty states, and against a signatory that had derogated its obligations under the treaty by going to war.
The United Nations Charter, which has had broader acceptance than the Kellogg-Briand Pact, carries the aims of the pact further by prohibiting the use of force or even the threat of force. The charter also attempts to impose these obligations on nonmembers in Article 2(6).
Cross-references
Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content.
| ?Page tools | ||
|---|---|---|
|