Header image header image 2  
  || HOME ||
   
 
The Laws Prohibiting War

kellog
“War between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be termed violators of this general treaty law.... We denounce them as law breakers." Henry Stimson, USA Secretary of State 1932

For eighty years UK law officers have deceived the public over the laws of war. Despite signing binding agreements never to wage a war of aggression [1], never to attack another country [2], never to kill or harm human beings [3], never to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group [4], to settle disputes peacefully, respect human rights, uphold and enforce the rule of law and act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation [5], our political leaders and Governments regularly violate these treaties killing and injuring thousands of totally innocent men, women and children. The time has come for the people to force political leaders to return to the path of peace, justice and the rule of law.

  • [1] The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
  • [2] The United Nations Charter 1945
  • [3] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
  • [4] The Proxmire Act 1988[US], The Rome Statute 1998, The International Criminal Court Act 2001
  • [5] The United Nations Charter 1945

Top of this page

All war is illegal.

War was outlawed in 1928 by the International Treaty for the Renunciation of War [the Kellogg-Briand Pact]. Sixty three nations including Britain, America, France, Germany and Japan ratified the Pact condemning recourse to war and agreeing to settle disputes peacefully. This treaty is still in force.

ARTICLE 1   The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
ARTICLE 2   The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact formed the legal basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. The attack on Iraq renders the Coalition's leaders liable for the same crime of waging aggressive war for which Germany's leaders were convicted and hanged in 1946. The Nuremburg judgement concluded:

"After the signing of the Pact, any nation resorting to war as an instrument of national policy breaks the Pact. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such war is illegal in international law; and that those who plan and wage such a war with its inevitable and terrible consequences are committing a crime in so doing."
"The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".

Top of this page

The Nuremburg Principles - The Universal Laws of War


These seven international war laws derived from the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals were adopted as universal statute war law by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950.
  • I. Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
  • II. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility.
  • III. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility.
  • IV. The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
  • V. Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
  • VI. The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
  • (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
  • (b) War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
  • (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
  • VII. Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Top of this page

Armed attacks on another State are always illegal


When a nation state [including the USA and UK] signs and ratifies the UN Charter it makes a binding agreement never to threaten or attack another member State and to settle all disputes peacefully.
  • 2.3 All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered.
  • 2.4 All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Top of this page

The UN Security Council cannot authorise the use of armed force.


The UN Security Council is a peacekeeping body and it my never use armed force. The claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was authorised by UN Security Council resolutions was a lie.
  • 41. The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon its members to apply such measures.

  • Top of this page

    The only legitimate use of armed force is self defence.


    All pre-emptive attacks were outlawed 150 years ago as a result of Britain's underhand pre-emptive attack on an American vessel "The Caroline" at Niagara. The only time when the use of armed force is legal is self-defence. If a nation is attacked it may legitimately use armed force to defend itself, but it may do so only until the UN Security Council implements measures to resolve the conflict [UN Charter Chapter VII Article 51]

    Willful killing is always a crime


    In times of war or peace it is never lawful, legal or right to kill another human being. The willful killing of enemy combatants is always a crime and is never lawful. The UK Human Rights Act specifies:
    "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided in law"
    It is never legal and always a crime for a serviceman to wilfully kill an enemy. Whenever a person dies as a result of an act of aggression all thos responsible for giving, transmitting or executing the orders that brought about the death commit a crime and become criminally liable in law.

    Top of this page

    Killing a person because of their nationality is genocide.


    Setting out to kill a person because of their nationality, race, religion or ethnicity is a crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention, the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
    It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, or to engage in conduct ancillary to such an act. This applies to acts committed in England or Wales or outside the United Kingdom by a UK national, resident or person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
    The widely held assumption that it is lawful to kill an enemy during times of war is incorrect. It is always a crime to kill or cause the death of a person even if they are described as 'the enemy'. Every resident of every State which took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and who aided or abetted the killing of Iraqis is criminally liable for the crime of genocide, conduct ancillary to genocide, accessory to genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide.
    This Statute [Rome Statute] shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as Head of State or Government, a member of a Government of Parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    Top of this page

    Aiding or abetting warfare or the use of armed force is a crime.


    Whenever a government embarks on illegal warfare, taxpayers become criminally liable for complicity in the crimes of their government and subject to the sanctions of domestic and international law. Actions such as paying tax, voting speaking or writing in favour of war are criminal offences. Individual citizens may argue that they did not intend to commit a crime, but as the meaning of intent is defined in the legislation they will find it hard to argue that they were not aware that anyone might be killed.
    Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as a principal offender.

    Top of this page

    Every citizen has a legal duty to disobey illegal orders.


    "If a person who is bound to obey a duly constituted superior receives from the superior an order to do some act or make some omission which is manifestly illegal, he is under a legal duty to refuse to carry out the order and if he does carry it out he will be criminally responsible for what he does in doing so."
    Article 24 Chapter VI of the Manual of Military Law applies to every British citizen and taxpayer as well as to servicemen and women. This means that if a government embarks on an illegal war everyone is duty bound to refuse all government orders associated with the war. Soldiers must refuse active service orders, armament suppliers must refuse to supply weapons and taxpayers must withhold taxes. Anyone who co-operates with a government that wages a war of aggression is complicit in a crime against peace and is criminally liable as an accessory to war crimes. As the judges at Nuremburg explained when convicting Germany's leaders for breaches of the laws of war:
    "The very essence of the [London] Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the State in authorising action moves outside its competence under international law...."

    Top of this page

    Leaders are responsible for the war crimes of their subordinates.


    The Internation Criminal Court Act makes it clear that no matter who launches the rockets, fires the cruise missiles, drops cluster bombs or deploys depleted uranium shells, responsibility for the resulting deaths, injuries and destruction lies with the political, civil or military leaders who ordered the attack.
    65. A military commander, or a person effectively acting as a military commander, is responsible for offences commited by forces under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control... A person responsible under this section for an offence is regarded as aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of the offence.

    We all have a legally binding duty to take a stand against war.


    Every human being has a responsibility to humankind to abide by their obligations and duties under international law and confine their activities to the legitimate path outlined by the UN Charter and the laws of war. These duties include refusing to obey unlawful Government or superior orders and withholding taxes from any Government that wages a war of aggression. War, in which thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed, is always illegal and all of us have a duty to humanity to ensure the it never recurs by upholding and enforcing these laws of war.

    © Chris Coverdale    The Campaign to Make Wars History    Dec 2008

    Top of this page

    Detailed information on the key laws of war can be found by following the links below:
    1. The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War [Kellogg-Briand Pact
    2. The United Nations Charter
    3. The Nuremburg Judgement
    4. The Nuremburg Principles
    5. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
    6. The International Criminal Court Act [UK] 2001

    ;