Curious. What is an act of War?

[DREDIOCK]

Is there a specific definition of "An act of war"

What is it exactly?

Im not looking for personal feelings on the issue.

But rather I am curious.

Are there rules written down somewhere like in the Geneva convention That clearly lists and defines exactly what is "An Act of War"?

[Toad]

More to the point, when is war justified?

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

For more info, debate and philosophy than you care to read, google up "Just War Theory" or "Jus Ad Bellum"

[FBplmmr]

right off hand, that may be as hard to define as "a football like move" when determining whether a reciever had control of the ball before fumble/incomplete pass.

but a quick stab - act of aggression against a country's military or civilians/infrastructure or the violating of a country's soveriegn borders for that purpose.

[DREDIOCK]

No thats not quite what Im looking for.

Toad I respect and generally agree tith that. But its still pretty much philisophical opinion.

I guess Im looking for some sort of official internationally agreed upon definition

Maybe to be more specific.

Is there some sort of  official international generally agreed upon list of things that are considered legitimate acts of war?

[dmf]

bombing a Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Blowing up a couple of buildings, physically invading the country, Assassinating the president, Bio Terror attack, Nuclear attack.

\But here lately in the past  dozen years it seem like an act of war is saying boo to the wrong person.

[Phaser11]

It seems it's different for every country. This is the best I could come up with after a 1 hour google search.

Casus belli is a modern Latin language expression meaning the justification for acts of war. Casus means "incident" or "rupture" while belli means "of war".

It is often misspelt and mispronounced as "causus belli" since this resembles the English "cause" (and a different Latin word, causa {cause}). "Casus belli" is also pronounced this way since the term does in practice effectively mean "cause for war".

Despite the apparent age that the use of Latin confers on it, the term did not come into wide usage until the late nineteenth century with the rise of the political doctrine of "jus ad bellum" or "just war theory". Informal usage varies beyond its technical definition to refer to any "just cause" a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. As such, it has been used both retroactively to describe situations in history before the term came into wide usage and in the present day when describing situations when war has not been formally declared.

Formally, a government would lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort ("ultima Ratio") and that it in fact possessed "just cause" for doing so.
From that webpidia place

[Toad]

Dred, it would be any act that qualifies under Jus Ad Bellum.

For example, take the examples in DMF's list and apply the principles to each act. If it fulfills the requirements, voila, you have your answer.

[eagl]

I don't think there is Dred.

Every time the US and S. Korea hold exercises, N. Korea calls it an act of war.

My co-worker farted and I called THAT an act of war.

The US has sponsored free trade agreements with both north and south america, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela considers that an act of war.

During the cold war, a U-2 was shot down over Russia and that was not an act of war.  Just a little while ago, China forced down a US spy plane over international waters, and detained the crew and the aircraft.  That was not an act of war either, even though China accused the US of using one of our uber-spyplanes to destroy a fighter plane, killing the pilot in an act of imperialist aggression after a fierce and heroic aerial battle.

Millions of Mexicans have entered the US without permission, increasing crime rates, overloading social services, and costing billions of dollars, and armed mexican police and military forces routinely cross into the US, but none of that is considered an act of war.

A couple of US police inadvertently entered Mexico while pursuing drug smugglers, and some politicians in Mexico called it a violation of national soverignty.  Typically, repeated violations are considered acts of war but they don't quite have enough Mexicans in Calif or TX yet so they'll hold off on declaring war for another few years.

It all depends on whatever the government decides is worth getting all worked up about.  In general, you'd think that sending armed troops into another country and shooting up the place would be a safe standard, but even that isn't the usual trigger for war.

[dmf]

Every time somebody in the U.S. wipes their butt, N Korea calls it an act of war

[xrtoronto]

When I was much younger, farting on your buddy's pillow just before you go to sleep was considered an act of war.

[Maverick]

Examine the conditions and provisions of your international treaties.

[DREDIOCK]

Hmmm

Doesnt anyone else think its odd thee there is no geneva convention type agreement on what is to be considered an act of war?


One would reason that with all the agreements and treaties in existance right now  and the (Cough cough ) UN they would have come up with something by now

[Stoney74]

Good question Drediock.  An no, there is no internationally sanctioned list of "acts of war".  If I was a nation, I wouldn't want to be bound by such a list.  I would want to be able to declare war whenever I so chose, without any sort of legal architecture with which I would need to conform.

Remember, its good to be the king...

[Booz]

Evidently in my house, pulling the covers back over is an act of war

[FiLtH]

I would think someone could anything negative against ones country or property could be viewed as an act of war. Depends how the victim wants to respond.