“International Law has no alternative but to accept war, independently of the justice of its origin, as a relation which the parties to it may set up if they choose, and to busy itself only in regulating the effects of the relation”. “This view, which was widely held during the 19th century, abandoned the distinction between the bellum justum and bellum injustum. The prohibition of the use of force and the principle of non intervention in internal or external affairs of other states are two of the fundamental principles of the international laws governing international relations. The use of force has been a long standing phenomenon in international relations and has been considered to be directly linked to the sovereignty of states the limitless power wielded by states to use all possible means to guard and protect their interests.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact outlawed the waging of “aggressive war” but when the United Nation Charter was adopted in 1945, it not only outlawed “aggressive war” but also prohibited any use of force or threat thereof. It covered both war and n-war armed conflicts. This paper will explains the international law principles which prohibits the use of force and the relevant use of force, then it will consider the legality of the coalition’s recent military action , previous cases in which the right to anticipatory self- defence has been relied upon, the opinion of international law commentators on these issues will be critically analysed and finally the possibilities for development of this branch of international law with particular emphasis on codification of relevant principles
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.