Has the state of war been made redundant by the UN Charter regime on the use of force?
Does war still exist according to international law? On the one hand, the answer is obviously in the affirmative - hostilities including the use of force between states do take place and rules of international law regulating them do exist. Less obvious, however, is whether a state of war as a condition creating legal consequences not only for the parties involved, but also for other states, is still legally relevant. While there have been many conflicts since 1945, few of them have been characterized as “war” and no declarations of war have been made. Hence, there is a tendency to avoid the term “war” on the ground that it is “arcane” and largely superseded by the term “international armed conflict”. Moreover, it has been claimed that a state of war is incompatible with the UN Charter and therefore can no longer exist under international law so that a qualification of a conflict as “war” as opposed to “armed conflict” would have no legal consequences. This dissertation will examine whether the concept of war is still relevant and necessary despite the introduction of the modern concept of international armed conflict. In the course of answering it, three further questions need to be posed. First, is it compatible with the UN Charter to continue to invoke the concept of “war”? Second, what are the consequences of recognizing a state of war as a contemporary legal concept? Finally, are there any norms in international law which are applicable in a state of war only?
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations