Whatever happened to Casus Bellorum?

[unmerged(1424)]

Countries once formally “Declared War” on each other, at specific times, before their forces fought. I don’t know when it started or how it is done, but it’s always been part of the diplomacy of war. From the old days up through EU times and beyond. But I haven’t heard of any countries doing it since World War II. What happened to the old Casus Belli?

Casus Belli does not translate as “cause of war” but rather “case/chance/opportunity for war.” Casus Bellorum is its plural.

 

[unmerged(1740)]

A lot of things

Probably the main reason, by far, was the development of nuclear weapons which pretty much ended formal states of war between two countries.

 

[unmerged(1424)]

Ra...diation...

A few countries having nukes did not change a centuries-old protocol.

Maybe the UN Charter forbids it, so now countries just always fight “unofficially.”

 

[Kedryn]

But weren't there border skirmishes back in the old days? That was unofficial fighting too. I admit, though... it was nothing like the 'States bombing Iraq into the ground whenever we elect a new President, but it was fighting without a declaration of war. But you're right... there hasn't been a clean declaration of war in forever.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by zbear
Countries once formally “Declared War” on each other, at specific times, before their forces fought. I don’t know when it started or how it is done, but it’s always been part of the diplomacy of war. From the old days up through EU times and beyond. But I haven’t heard of any countries doing it since World War II. What happened to the old Casus Belli?

The DoW was a formaility of the age in EU. In actuallity it servered little purpose since wars were largely cabinent affairs that did not involve masses of the population. The height of the use of a DoW was to impose higher taxes and/or print money.

By the 19th centrury the DoW had a very specific use- it was the tool that allowed for full mobilization. In light of the levee en masse nations had to call on the full human resources of the country and something more formal was need to justify this measure. This need to a 'formal' beginning got greater was the 19thc went on and during the early 20thc for two reaons: the greater involvement of the general population in politics meant you needed their support for a war and a justification and the growth of formalized war plans (Schlieffen ebing the most famous) that operated off timetables that required a starting point.

Nations now no-longer fight massive wars- great power wars are almost a thing of the past with nukes. The US doesn't need to mobilize for war to slap around Iraq and Serbia for example.

A DoW is a serious thing but by not throwing one out you create the illusion of peace at home. Honestly, here in the states no one would have known the USA and Iraq were at war. I guarantee that if the Russians got frisky and invaded Germany you'd see actual DoW's isnce that is the type of war that would require full mobilization (assuming that we all didn't vaporize).

 

[Besuchov]

Did'nt the US congress declare war on IRAQ, I seem to remember that they did. I'm not sure though...

 

[UnionBuster]

Nope. WW2 was the last time war was actually declared by the Congress.

 

[unmerged(1796)]

DoW Alive and Well

Actually I would posit that declarations of war very much remain a legal and accepted method of initiating hostilities between states in the nuclear era.
The Korean war is certainly an example of declarations of war being used, even though one did not precede the beginning of the conflict due to the need for surprise, and in fact there still exists a state of war between the two korean states.
Again we see formal states of war existing between the Arab Israeli states in 1956, 1967 and 1973. The franco-british move to the suez in 1956 was carried out with subterfuge, claiming to be acting as 'peace-enforcers' and that actuall foreshadows several western actions later on that also try to generate legitimacy through unconventional means.
Vietnam was another setting for a traditional war although with the added element of an insurgency in south vietnam and of course american involvement and participation through their south-vietnamese proxy.
The great difference appears to be that with larger, and more effective, standing armies the need for prolonged mobilisation is much decreased and therefore a formal declaration of war prior to the commencement of hostile action could severely compromise the success of the operation.
The modern balkan wars remain an altogether more complex issue. The actual fighting between local forces has clearly been a civil war (with foreign sponsors in many cases) but NATO's action has not been 'war' in the traditional sense because being aware of the dubious legality of their actions (especially in Kosovo) the allies justified their operations with reference to the UN charter, while purposefully ignoring those sections of the charter which directly countermanded their operations.

This could turn into quite a fun topic... and I hope all of you will bear with my comments being a little rambling in nature, but I didn't feel like breaking out the library at this point.

 

[unmerged(548)]

But I haven?t heard of any countries doing it since World War II. What happened to the old Casus Belli?

There was someone called Hitler. He liked the idea of Blitzkrieg. Very hard to do if you announce beforehand that you are comming =)

 

[jls211]

So very true. The element of surprise plays a big role in many aspects of modern military operations -- stealth, night operations, etc. Declaring war formally ruins the surprise.

Besides, it's kinda hard to sneak tens of thousands of men marhcing in formation while carrying pikes and swords across a border...

 

[unmerged(860)]

I'd argue that it's impossible to amass an army at the borders in stealth these days. Saddam Hussein tried that before invading Kuwait, unfortunately for Kuwait they only lasted for 2 days or something, then Saddam started amassing his army on the Saudi-Arabian border, and then the Saudi's decided that American troops were welcome to use Saudi-Arabia as a base.

What with all the satellite's upthe now, there's no way to prepare an invasion in secret anymore.

 

[unmerged(1424)]

Grazi.

Thank you Sidney, that's what I wanted to know. And hutier for your insight.

The evolution (and extinction?) of the DoW is shameful.

 

[unmerged(1432)]

UK declared war on Germany

Probably most Brittish school-kids know by heart the most famous declaration of war in the 20th century. Neville Chamberlain, speaking on September 9th 1939:

'This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final Note stating that unless we heard from them by 11 0'clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland a state of war would exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.'

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gb3.htm

--
Lucian

 

[unmerged(659)]

Originally posted by Produce Pete
I'd argue that it's impossible to amass an army at the borders in stealth these days. Saddam Hussein tried that before invading Kuwait, unfortunately for Kuwait they only lasted for 2 days or something, then Saddam started amassing his army on the Saudi-Arabian border, and then the Saudi's decided that American troops were welcome to use Saudi-Arabia as a base.

What with all the satellite's upthe now, there's no way to prepare an invasion in secret anymore.

In that same war, however, the Coalition forces were able to move both the VII Corps and the XVIII Corps undetected from the Saudi-Kuwati border to the Saudi-Iraqi border father west.

Satellites and the like are just a high-tech watchtower: they only can see one specific area, albeit a broad one, at a time. A smart commander will use the time in between satellite passes to move his troops. Or, he will attack from an area or in a manner undetectable by satellites.

 

[khurjan]

remember pearl harbor. japanese did hand in a declaration of war. they miscalculated the time needed to translate it into english, it was 7,000 senteces long, they tried to time it so that it would be translated just 5 minutes before the attack. rest is history you know

 

[unmerged(1891)]

Declaring war is a legal act, however it removes the chance for total surprise. In EU with messages moving as fast as a quick horse suprise can still be achieved through timing (although there is an issue about how fast colonies can start fighting when war is declared in Europe)

The problem also comes in ending a war which requires a legal peace treaty. Simply bombing one day and stopping the next is less complicated as far as law and the global community is concerned

 

[Smiffus]

Casus Belli does not translate as “cause of war” but rather “case/chance/opportunity for war.” Casus Bellorum is its plural.

Err.. if my memory of my old Latin lessons serves me correctly the plural of 'casus belli' is 'casus belli'.
the plural of casus is casus and belli shouldn't be made plural (otherwise you'd get opportunities of/for wars)
Not very important, but still...

 

[unmerged(554)]

Originally posted by Smiffus

Err.. if my memory of my old Latin lessons serves me correctly the plural of 'casus belli' is 'casus belli'.
the plural of casus is casus and belli shouldn't be made plural (otherwise you'd get opportunities of/for wars)
Not very important, but still...

I am not so sure - because if it weren't plural then there would be one and the same cause for several wars, and there were probably different causes for each war.

Anyway, the classical term for the just reason to go war was 'causa belli'. In plural that would be 'causae bellorum'.

When this became 'casus belli' I do not know, but the plural of that would, as mentioned before, be 'casus bellorum'.

Just my two silver pieces.

 

[Smiffus]

I am not so sure - because if it weren't plural then there would be one and the same cause for several wars, and there were probably different causes for each war.

Anyway, the classical term for the just reason to go war was 'causa belli'. In plural that would be 'causae bellorum'.

When this became 'casus belli' I do not know, but the plural of that would, as mentioned before, be 'casus bellorum'.

Just my two silver pieces.

You could be right, perhaps my understanding of the english language is to blame. I was trying to translate 'opportunities to wage war' as I thought that 'to wage war' was an abstract phrase for which there is no plural....

 

[grumbold]

Elephantum ex musca facis