OMOLIVES, Your frustration re this question is your choice. Personally i think we have seen enough to pretty much make it a wrap in my mind.
"No, not at all. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello is unanswered law ...or in other words something that can not be determined/settled. It's so gray that such is neither legal or illegal. So if you can not differentiate between the two, such as no seperation.......legality and illegality is moot. The bottom line... war is an abomination that lies outside of any justification. Frustrating as hell man."
My search -- it's settled , invading another's borders without provocation is illegal .. there are illegal wars
AI's response -- Thinking Kicking off 3 searches Looking at 79 sites
Putting it all together
In modern international law, it is settled that invading another country's borders without provocation is illegal.
Since the mid-20th century, the international legal order has been grounded on the principle of prohibiting wars of aggression. While this principle has not been perfectly enforced, a war launched for conquest is now widely regarded as an illegal act.
The illegality of wars of aggression
The shift towards outlawing aggressive war began in the 20th century and is rooted in several key international agreements.
* Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928): This treaty was one of the first major attempts to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy.
* Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals: Following World War II, these tribunals prosecuted individuals for the "crime of aggression," which was defined as the planning, initiation, or waging of an aggressive war.
* UN Charter (1945): Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter strictly prohibits member states from using or threatening force against the "territorial integrity or political independence of any state". This principle is considered customary international law and can only be set aside in specific, narrow circumstances, such as self-defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council.
* Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): The statute includes the "crime of aggression" as one of the four core international crimes, though the ICC's ability to prosecute it is limited by jurisdictional conditions.
Legitimate use of force under international law
The use of force across borders is only considered legitimate under international law in two narrowly defined circumstances:
* Self-defense: A state may use armed force in self-defense if it is under or facing an "imminent" armed attack.
* UN Security Council authorization: The UN Security Council can authorize the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security.
What the Geneva Conventions do
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols define the humanitarian rules of armed conflict, also known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL). They do not determine the legality of going to war but rather regulate conduct during a war, regardless of how it started. The conventions protect people who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities, such as:
* Civilians * Wounded and sick soldiers * Prisoners of war
The Geneva Conventions also define war crimes as "grave breaches" of the treaties. These include acts like willful killing, torture, and unlawful deportation.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more
Preemptive add: Yeah, i framed the comment to fit the situation as i see it, that international law developed over time and still developing, is settled enough as others see it today. I agree with all the experts who disagree with you. Your position they say is yesterday's story.
I do agree with you that war is an abomination. On whether or not some wars are illegal, we disagree.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
