In cause”, last resort, right authority, and proportionality.
In 1991 the new international order is threatened by one man, Saddam Hussain, who has deliberately broken the international rules by aggressing one of his Arab neighbours –Kuwait. A far-reaching decision is then taken : to declare war on Iraq. More than 10 years later, the situation in the Gulf region remains unsolved. This observation raises a question : What was the use of a war in 1991 if the international order is still in jeopardy 10 years later Was the Gulf War a "just war"
Then the concept of "just war" reappears suddenly. But the notion is far from being a new one. It pervades the western tradition on war from Saint Augustine to Grotius and later on the international law. This "doctrine" provides us with two useful elements : One the one hand, the concept of jus as bellum addresses the question of the justification of force ; On the other hand, the concept of jus in bellum concerns the restraints and limits on how force may be use. Thus are expressed the criteria to define whether or not a war is "just".
We can justify the use of force thanks to the concepts of "just cause", last resort, right authority, and proportionality.
First, what is a "just cause" In the tradition, for a just cause to exist, the purpose of the war must be done to redress in some way a wrong done by the enemy2. More specifically in the XXe century, the International Law has gradually reduced the acceptable justification of war to one – Defence, which implies the notion of "second use of force" and that of aggression. But how is aggression recognised
Article 1 : Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.
Article 5 : No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for
In the case of the Gulf War, the Iraqi…