As far as I know, no war has ever officially been declared since the Soviet declaration of war towards Japan in July 1945. What happened to the formality of declaring a war, which used to be so important in former times? Does the disappearance of this symbolic action make constitutional regilatiosn about a declaration of war meaningless? And is killing people on command of the government not regarded as a “war” in the sense of international law if it is not properly declared?
Looks to me like a way for the president to wage war anytime he wants without bringing Congress into it. Why else would Congress have tried to get a piece of the action with the War Powers Act?
“Declaring war” was a product of an era in which leaders were considered to be “gentlemen”, and acted as such.
World War 1 , with it’s use of attacks on civilians (Big Bertha Gun, Zepplin air-raids, etc.) started the end of that.
WW2, with it’s purges, slaughter, & the Holocaust sounded the death-knell to the age of Gentleman Warriors.
Now, it’s a matter of quickdraw. Whoever shoots first & best wins.
It could be true that wars are not declared any more, but there are nations who are still in an official state of war.
All the Arab countries declared war on Israel at the founding of the State, and as of now only Egypt and Jordan have ended their state of war.
I did however find this…
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~pizza/dow.html
Amongst Europeans. Brown bastards of various complections rarely got such privileges extended to them.
Actually virtually every war in Europe before hand contained its fair share of attacks, perhaps inadvertant or not, on civilians.
Rather, it tore away the last shreds which made up the mythology of gentlemen warriors.
Just a guess, but it might be that a formal declaration of war was used as a means to rally the population of a nation in times past, when war was seen as a thing of honor and glory. Since was is now seen as a thing of horror, a declaration of war would now have the opposite effect.
IIRC, the UN passed some resolution that banned war as a method of resolving disputes. Now we have “police actions” etc.
They are not declared because it’s real easy to smuggle them past the customs agents.
One reason among many: during the 1950’s when China tried to take over Malaya as the British were de-colonizing, the fighting was called an “emergency” rather than a war. This was done to protect the plantation owners from the insurance companies back in London. It seems rates and settlements go into a whole new category during an official war.
Actually, most policies that I know of (health, life, disability, homeowners) do not cover anything as a result of war.
BTW, in regard to my last post, the cite for it is in The World’s Most Dangerous Places by Robert Young Pelton…I just can’t find the pages…but it’s in there.
Piece of advice. Don’t derive your information from that book.
The UN did not “ban” warfare – that would be an excercise in ludicrous futility. If the author actually said that he’s far more misinformed than I previously suspected. AFAIK the charter does have language discouraging the use of armed conflict to discourage dispute resolution, but none of this impinges on a state’s sovereign right to declare war. Further, again AFAIR, the sole substantive text on the issue are the Geneva Convention texts, which do not differentiate between delcared and undeclared wars.
Journalistic blather and sensationalism.
In 1989, Panama declared war on the United States a couple days before the U.S. invaded to arrest President Manuel Noriega. In 1992, Noriega successfully claimed that he should be considered a prisoner of war. One result is he is allowed to wear his military uniform in prison while serving his drug sentence.
I think, the war banning treaty was the Kellogg-Briand Pact from the twenties. But nonetheless the following WWII was declared.
Norieaga did rant that Panama was “At war” with the United States, but there was not actually a formal diplomatic message that a state of war existed. Noriega is most certainly NOT allowed to wear his military uniform in prison.
To answer the OP, I think it is important to note that formal, legal declarations of war are the historical exception, not the rule. The notion of “Declaring war” is a product of the invention of the European nation-state during the renaissance; you need states to declare war, and prior to that there were no “nation states” per se. the transition from feudalism to statehood brought with it the notion of international law, states bound by legalities, as well as the notion fo national sovereingty; the notion that a state’s boundaries are inviolable. To engage in a state of war, then, you needed to go through a legal process - a declaration of war. This transition was pretty much complete after Napoleon was gotten rid of, so for a European nation to invade another without the appropriate diplomatic steps would have made them a pariah.
As has been pointed out, though, this was a phenomenon unique to Europe. Europeans did not consider, say, the Zulus or the Aztecs to be a “state” worthy of diplomatic recognition and so there was no point in “declaring” war on them; they were savages and heathen, so kill away. Similarly, the rest of the world didn’t buy into any of this, since for the most part the European concept of the nation-state was foreign to them.
Declarations of war began to die out after 1945 for three reasons:
-
With the advent of aerial warfare and fully mechanized armies, the element of strategic surprise is more important now. In 1750, when it took months to raise an army and weeks to get anywhere, it wasn’t such a big deal to let someone know you were coming because they’d know anyway. Today, you can devastate someone’s army in a matter of hours if they aren’t wise to your scheming, so you have a vested interest in NOT declaring war. Think of all the cases when major military victories were won literally hours into the conflict due to massive surprise; Pearl Harbor, or the Six-Day War (Egyptian air force blown to smithereens on the ground)
-
As has been pointed out, new machinations of international law like “police actions” and “interventions” allow for basically the same thing without actually calling it “declared war.” For all practical intents and purposes, the United States declared war on Iraq in 1991; they gave Iraq an ultimatum with a specific deadline and said they’d fight if they had to, and Congress passed a resolution okaying it. That’s pretty much the same thing, right?
-
Let’s be honest; “Declaring” war is stupid anyway. There’s really no point. Rather, over the last century and a half international law has turned towards attempting to limit the devastation of war and protect the innocent, such as the Geneva Conventions (protecting the wounded, the helpless, POWs and civilians), international treaties against the use of chemical and biological weapons, arms conventions of all types, the establishment of the International Red Cross, etc.
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica’s Panama article, “The Noriega-led assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed. The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer dressed in civilian clothes.”
He most certainly is. A 1999 Detroit Free Press article, Celebs behind bars, notes that: “Because he is technically a prisoner of war, the Geneva Convention permits him to strut about in his khaki general’s uniform, a perquisite only partly offset by the shouts of ‘sissy’ from other inmates when he ventures outside.”
Also, an Associated Press article from last year, Former President Bush Fears for His Life if Noriega Freed, noted “Deemed a prisoner of war by his trial judge, Noriega is allowed to wear his military uniform in prison.”
Finally, when Noriega was interviewed by 60 Minutes a couple years back, Noriega wore his military uniform, and the show explained the special circumstances which allowed him to do so.
I asked a similar question in 1999. Here is the link
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=5117
In a related sorta hijack…
What’s up with the “Operation XXXX”?
As in Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Shield, some other Operation Something in Kosovo. Is this a new development or do we routinely name our “Operations”?
Operation Overlord was the allied invasion of Normandy France. The concept has been around for a while. An Operation is a Miltary plan and execution toward a goal, and does not always result in a Battle.
…Actually, Jomo Mojo did touch on it in the first reply.
For the US, at least, there are very specific legal issues surrounding a declaration of war. Basically it takes an act of congress to do so and it will be very hard these days to get enough politicians to back anything that sees some of their constituency getting shot at.
This has been a point of contention between congress and the president for a long time now. The president feels that, as Commander-in-Chief, he needs to be able to deploy US forces as he sees fit. Things such as the Cuba Missile Crisis or Kuwait or the Gulf of Tonkin brew-up quickly and the President simply can’t wait for congress to dawdle on what should be done.
Of course, the president is absolutley right in this. The downside that pisses congress off is that the president can, effectively, get us into a war and they don’t feel that one man should have that ability. Hence the War Powers act which somehwat ties the president’s hands.
So, what does the president do? He simply never asks congress to declare war. As Commander-in-Chief it is his responsibility alone to deploy US forces. If they happen to be deployed in an area where they are getting shot at then it is only right that they get to defend themselves. I think the War Powers Act demands the president get their approval eventually or move out forces out of danger but as a constitutional matter I’m not sure if it’s ever been tested. I think congress knows it would lose a constitutional challenge so the president usually gets his way with a little deal making.
Needless to say this sort of thing is a perpetual bone of contention between the two.
The TV channel “Euronews” said this morning that Macedonia was thinking of declaring a “State of War” against the Albanian rebels fighting in that country. Whether this is the same as declaring war or just another name for martial law I don’t know but the news report said that this would give the Macedonian goverment more freedom to fight the Albanians.