'Again' doesn't help when your assertions do not stand up to scrutiny. You don't believe in established legal constraints anymore than the orange fascist you voted for.
The claim that "war is not legal or illegal" is inaccurate in the context of modern international law. Since the early 20th century, a robust body of international law, known as jus ad bellum, or the law on the use of force, has established strict rules governing when a state can legally initiate a war.
Illegality under jus ad bellum
International law forbids states from resorting to war as an instrument of national policy, except under specific, limited circumstances. The primary legal framework for this prohibition is the United Nations Charter, which was created in the aftermath of World War II to limit and regulate the use of force.
The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, with two narrow exceptions:
Self-defense: A state may use military force in individual or collective self-defense against an armed attack.
UN Security Council authorization: The UN Security Council may authorize the use of force "to maintain or restore international peace and security".
A war of aggression, which is an invasion or attack that is not justified by these exceptions, is considered the gravest international crime and a violation of the UN Charter. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a recent example that has been widely condemned as an illegal war of aggression.
Legality under jus in bello (Laws of Armed Conflict)
Even if a war is legally started under the jus ad bellum framework, the conduct of the fighting itself is regulated by a separate set of rules known as jus in bello or International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Violating these rules constitutes a war crime.
These rules apply to all parties in a conflict and dictate:
Distinction: Combatants must always distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian property. Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime.
Proportionality: The anticipated military advantage of an attack must not be excessive in relation to the expected harm to civilians.
Humanity: Prohibits the use of weapons or methods of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering.
Treatment of non-combatants: Sets rules for the humane treatment of prisoners of war, the wounded, and civilians.
The challenge of enforcement
Despite the existence of a legal framework for war, the notion that "might makes right" can sometimes hold sway in practice. Powerful nations can and do act with impunity, and the enforcement of international law is notoriously difficult.
However, the international community has established institutions and precedents to address violations of the laws of war, including:
Nuremberg Principles: Established after World War II, these principles asserted that individuals can be held criminally responsible for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, even if they were following orders.
International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals for the most serious international crimes, including war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Sanctions: Economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation are often used to punish states that violate international law.
The philosophical versus legal view
The statement that war is "a horrible truth" points to the philosophical perspective that war is a part of the human condition. However, this philosophical lens is distinct from the modern legal reality, which was intentionally created to challenge and constrain that notion. The existence of legal prohibitions and accountability mechanisms—even if imperfectly enforced—shows that the world has collectively decided that war and invasion can and should be judged by a standard of legality.
Genesis AI
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
