As stated in the title. Is there an official “tipping point” that requires Congress to declare an official war and, if so, what is it?
It’s a great question. AIUI, the U.S. has not formally declared war since WWII. So, all of the military actions that the country has undertaken since then (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, etc.) have lacked that formal declaration.
The War Powers Act of 1973 says the President must consult Congress prior to military action and notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to military action. And forces must be removed within 60 days unless Congress approves in the form of a war declaration or other specific authorization. Almost every president since 1973 has ignored one or more of those requirements.
No. There is nothing that would require Congress to declare a war.
I’m focusing this on the word “requires” to Congress. We can certainly be in a “war” without a congressional declaration if that’s what you mean.
I’d guess there is more you’re getting at but I’ll wait awhile. The history of this stuff is interesting to me.
There isn’t one.
Only Congress can declare War (capital W)
trump used the word “war” yet I don’t even believe he’ll have to answer to His Congress in 90 days, as using the military on foreign soil calls for (so-called “War Powers Act”)
Dunno if it’s to “get around” some technicality, like Putin’s “war” (military action) in Ukraine, yet the last declared War was:
June 1942 was the last “pair” of declarations between the United States and Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary (Axis powers). These were not bilateral declarations but part of a series following the US entry into the war after Pearl Harbor.
So it’s lower-cased “war” or military action/police action (Korea - still going!)/ kidnapping a foreign leader, or it’s a War like Germany on Poland. Now there’s probably too much paperwork to file at the UN.
Kier Starmer came right out and declared he had nothing to do with it. A true Knight.
I haven’t seen a country condemn it. They might care about the USA taking as much oil as they want. Yet who asked them?
Declaring war went out with dropping atomic bombs on people. It simply isnt done anymore. Russia didnt declare on Ukraine.
No, there isn’t-What I asked was precisely what I wanted to know. If I was “getting at something” I would have posted the question in another thread.
A declaration of war obligates the nation declaring it to observe the Geneva Convention, which many bellicose countries consider inconvenient. A “police action” gives them more freedom of action.
This is exactly the correct answer. As a PolSci student in the early 80s I wrote a lengthy research paper on the War Powers Act. This was exactly what I concluded then. Having done the research, I have been attuned to uses of force since then, and it remains true. If anything, even moreso. And it isn’t just the Presidents ignoring it. Congress consistently goes along - other than occasional window dressing.
Well, as of this morning, Rubio is being reported as claiming we are not at war with Venezuela. Not sure whether you get to say “backsies” after a clear act of war, or whether Rubio is respecting Congress and saying that what we’re in isn’t a war.
Or, covering his (and the administration’s) ass.
The drafters of the Geneva Conventions were not so naive. The definitions used in the Conventions apply equally regardless of whether a war is declared or not.
[Moderating]
While there is factual content to this post, the tone isn’t really appropriate for FQ. Further, the question was general, not specific to the current actions in Venezuela. To avoid politics in FQ, let’s just answer the question in general, please, in this thread.
So the obvious follow-up is - what happens after 60 days if the government fails to remove its troops from a “non” war? What would congress do? A sharply worded letter?
I suppose they could impeach if someone ignores laws and deadlines.
I think it is less “obvious follow-up” and more “another thread to follow this one”.
The USA more or less ruled Haiti as an unofficial colony for years, and afaik no special congressional resolution backed this, let alone an official declaration of war.
If there was an armed conflict (“hostilities” in war powers lingo) and the President failed to comply with the war powers resolution, that would be a violation of US federal law.
Legally, there are co-equal branches of Gov’t. Congress could use their powers. The big ones would be cutting off funding for the military operations and impeachment (and declare the war). Further, the Courts could use their powers to stop it. Since the operation is a violation of law, they could enjoin/stop the operations.
Politically, this never happens. Congress and the Judiciary always decline to use their power and just cede to the Executive. This is done via fig leaves: Congress accept Presidents explanation that this isn’t really “hostilities” so war powers resolution does not apply so not a violation of law. And the Judiciary will decline to get involved saying this is all a political question between Congress/Executive and should not involve the Judiciary.
Pretty much, except more extensive than just the Geneva Conventions. A declaration of war makes all the above fig leaves disappear. It’s a signed confession. The GC always apply, but they are harder to prove without a declaration of war. From a criminal prosecutor’s prospective, which is a big reason why declarations of war are not done anymore, it is handing the prosecutor a huge part of their case gift wrapped in a giant bow.
For the GC to apply a prosecutor needs to prove Country A is in an international armed conflict with Country B. It’s a difficult thing to prove - what is the “tipping point” from non-war to war as mentioned by OP. This must be proven, and if you can’t prove there is an armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions do not apply and the ICC/Global Jurisdiction Countries, etc. cannot try anyone. So no country declares war anymore to limit criminal exposure. There was no “criminal” exposure prior to WWII. When the war was over, it was over.
Even if you are not in an armed conflict does not mean you are not violating any law. You definitely are. Just not the GC. But all laws need to be enforced. So it just means you are less exposed globally (who actually would have jurisdiction to go after you for GC violations), and just daring US domestic law to get you. As discussed above, Congress and the Judiciary have historically declined to do anything even though they have the power to do it.
Late: To be clear, Congress can formally declare a war after the President starts one. This is what I thought the OP might be getting at. It would trigger all kinds of statutes to hold the President accountable and do away with all the fig leaves. The fact Congress does not do this, is political as discussed above. It’s basically calling BS on the police action nonsense.
Would that even apply to the sort of surgical strike, over and done with operations like the interventions in Venezuela (and previously, Panama)?
Is this really going to be over and done? We could see insurgencies going on for years.