Aggression Aggression in international law is defined as the use of force by one State against another, not justified by self-defense

or other legally recognized exceptions. The illegality of aggression is perhaps the most fundamental norm of modern international law and its prevention the chief purpose of the United Nations. Even before the UN, the League of Nations made the prevention of aggression a core aim; and the postWorld War II Allied tribunals regarded aggression as a crime under the rubric crimes against peace. The most authoritative definition comes from the UN General Assembly. (The UN Charter never defines the term, instead banning the threat or use of force.) In 1974, it completed a twenty-year project to define aggression. Member States claimed that a definition would help the UN principally the Security Council, charged by the charter with addressing aggressionin responding more consistently and promptly. While it reflects a broad international consensus, it is not a treaty, though it may represent customary international law. The definition begins by stating that [t]he first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter constitutes prima facie evidence of aggression. The definition is somewhat limiting, and perhaps circular, in that the first use of force by a State would not be aggression if undertaken in a way consistent with the charter. Thus, for example, the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia in 1992, while the first use of force, would not be aggression because it was authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the charter. A number of States have accepted that a States first use of force to extricate its citizens from another State when they are in imminent danger, and the other State is not able to protect them, is not aggression (e.g., Israels 1976 Entebbe raid) and may be a form of self-defense. Some scholars and human rights activists have advocated a broader right of non-UN- approved intervention to prevent large-scale human rights abuses. Second, the definition offers an illustrative list of acts of aggression: invasion, attack, or occupation of whatever duration; bombardment; blockade; attack on another States armed forces; unauthorized use of military forces stationed in a foreign State; allowing territory to be used for aggression; and sending armed bands or similar groups to carry out aggression or substantial involvement therein. Acts of aggression such as these trigger the two key lawful uses of force mentioned in the charter: (a) individual or collective self-defense; and (b) force approved by the UN itself. Thus, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait triggered the right of Kuwait and its allies to engage in self-defense, as well as the right of the UN to approve the use of force against Iraq under Chapter VII. Despite its prohibition in international law, aggression remains a feature of international life. Although the classic attack on another State is not as rampant as before World War II, more subtle forms of armed intervention persist, and the responses of the international community remain plagued by timidity and inconsistency. Jus Ad Bellum Jus (or ius) ad bellum is the title given to the branch of law that defines the legitimate reasons a state may engage in war and focuses on certain criteria that render a war just. The principal modern legal source of jus ad bellum derives from the Charter of the United Nations, which declares in Article 2: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the 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; and in Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

Jus in bello, by contrast, is the set of laws that come into effect once a war has begun. Its purpose is to regulate how wars are fought, without prejudice to the reasons of how or why they had begun. So a party engaged in a war that could easily be defined as unjust (for example, Iraqs aggressive invasion of Kuwait in 1990) would still have to adhere to certain rules during the prosecution of the war, as would the side committed to righting the initial injustice. This branch of law relies on customary law, based on recognized practices of war, as well as treaty laws (such as the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907), which set out the rules for conduct of hostilities. Other principal documents include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protect war victimsthe sick and wounded (First); the shipwrecked (Second); prisoners of war (Third); and civilians in the hands of an adverse party and, to a limited extent, all civilians in the territories of the countries in conflict (Fourth)and the Additional Protocols of 1977, which define key terms such as combatants, contain detailed provisions to protect noncombatants, medical transports, and civil defense, and prohibit practices such as indiscriminate attack. There is no agreement on what to call jus in bello in everyday language. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and many scholars, preferring to stress the positive, call it international humanitarian law (IHL) to emphasize their goal of mitigating the excesses of war and protecting civilians and other noncombatants. But military thinkers, backed by other scholars, emphasize that the laws of war are drawn directly from the customs and practices of war itself, and are intended to serve State armies. They commonly use the more traditional rubric, the laws and customs of armed conflict or more simply, the laws of war. Jus Cogens jus cogens includes the prohibition ofgenocide, maritime piracy, slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade, torture, and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.