Can public international law effectively moderate contemporary warfare Essay

Can public international law effectively moderate contemporary warfare - Essay Example International law is made by international treaties, which generates directives binding upon the parties, and accustomed laws, which are essentially state practices accepted by the community at large as establishing patterns of demeanor that have to be followed. Countries that are signatories to the international law do observe it, and infringements are relatively low (Basak, 2010). Nonetheless, such infringements such as racial oppression and armed attacks are exposed and attack the heart of the system, which is the generation and protection of international peace and justice. Just similar to normal assaults on national legal systems such as rapes, incidences of murder and robbery, corresponding attacks on international law show the weaknesses of the system devoid of their disparagement. In spite of the infrequent gross violation, the vast common requirements of international law are adhered to. This paper will seek to determine the effectiveness of the principles of international l aw in moderating the contemporary warfare. ... the threat or use of force Proscription on the use of force is the most significant principle that regulates International law, because of the magnitude of war, deeds of hostility and their consequences on the international system and associations between countries (Brownlie, 1999). This prohibition applies not only to the member states of United Nations but also to every nation. Additionally, this proscription is applicable to not only territories but also to borders and international distinction lines, because of the sensitivity of such lines in the cold war perspective (Armstrong et al, 2007). Most significantly, this principle forbids the indirect use of force. This is particularly significant since failing to include indirect use of force would mean that nations would indirectly do what they were prohibited to do. On one hand, it is clear that many nations respect this proscription. Additionally, this principle has been modified to include â€Å"lawful† use of force in nu merous instances using the powers of the UN Security Council. For instance, the Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) that permitted alliance forces to apply â€Å"all necessary means† including the use of armed force to sojourn Iraq’s illegitimate seizure of Kuwait (Dixon & McCorquodale, 2005). On the other hand, however, this principle has been the most challenged and breached principles of the international law. For example, the use of force for self-defense intentions, which is accepted in the customary international law as a â€Å"lawful† application of force, has been wrongly applied by the United States as an effort to validate illegitimate hostility (Basak, 2010). The USSR and US used â€Å"self-defense† to justify their use of force during the Cold War. In this regard, although this