International Armed Conflict

International Legal Research

Information about International Armed Conflict in free legal resources:

Treaties & Agreements

International Organizations

Jurisprudence $ Commentary

European Union

IP Law

International Armed Conflict

Humanitarian Intervention

The prohibition of force in Article 2(4) and the principle of nonintervention spelled out in Article 2(7), which protects states from interference in their internal affairs, are important problems in international public law. Like preemption, humanitarian intervention challenges important international norms.

International Armed Conflict

Embracing mainstream international law, this section on international armed conflict explores the context, history and effect of the area of the law covered here.

Jus in bello: The Law of Armed Conflict


Further Reading

  • The entry “international armed conflict” in the Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (currently, the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, 2009), Oxford University Press
  • Arend, A.C. (2003) International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force. Washington Quarterly 26 (2), 89–103.
  • Armstrong, D., Farrell, T., and Lambert, H. (2007) International Law and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bellamy, A.J. (2006) Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Ethics and International Affairs 20 (2), 142–70.
  • Best, G. (1994) War and Law since 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Byers, M. (2005) War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. New York: Grove.
  • Carpenter, R.C. (2008) Geneva 2.0. The National Interest (July/Aug.), 60–7.
  • Cassese, A. (2005) International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Davis Biddle, T. (1994) Air Power. In M. Howard, G.I. Andreopoulos, and M.R. Shulman (eds.) The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 40–58.
  • Dershowitz, A. (2006) “Civilian Casualty”? That’s a Gray Area. Los Angeles Times (July 22).
  • Doyle, M.W. (1986) Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review 80 (4), 1151–69.
  • Dunlap, C.J. (2008) Lawfare Today: A Perspective. Yale Journal of International Affairs 3 (1), 146–54.
  • Evans, G. (2004) When is it Right to Fight? Journal of Social Affairs 21 (82), 13–36.
  • Finnemore, M., and Toope, S. (2001) Alternatives to Legalization: Richer Views of Law and Politics. International Organization 55, 743–58.
  • Glanz, J., and Rubin, A.J. (2008) Iraqi Army Takes Last Basra Areas from Sadr Force. New York Times (Apr. 21).
  • Glennon, M.J. (2005) How International Rules Die. Georgetown Law Journal 93 (3), 939–91.
  • Goldstein, J.L., Kahler, M., Keohane, R.O., and Slaughter, A.-M. (eds.) (2001) Legalization and World Politics, International Organization special issue. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Guzman, A.T. (2002) A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law. California Law Review 90, 1823–87.
  • Henkin, L. (1979) How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • House of Commons (2007) Second Report (Jan. 10).
  • Human Rights Watch (2000a) Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign. At, accessed July 24, 2008.
  • Human Rights Watch (2008a) Troops in Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan. At, accessed Mar. 4, 2009.
  • International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001) The Responsibility to Protect. At, accessed Nov. 16, 2007.
  • International Court of Justice (1986) Nicaragua v. United States.
  • Kahl, C.H. (2007) In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs? Norms, Civilian Casualties, and US Conduct in Iraq. International Security 32 (1), 7–46.
  • Kegley, C.W., and Raymond, G.A. (2003) Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order. International Studies Perspectives 4, 385–94.
  • Keohane, R.O. (1984) After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Koller, D.S. (2005) The Moral Imperative: Toward a Human Rights-Based Law of War. Harvard International Law Journal 46, 231–63.
  • Morgenthau, H.J. (1948) Politics among Nations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Price, R. (1997) The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Project on Defense Alternatives (2004) Disappearing the Dead: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Idea of a “New Warfare.”
  • Responsibility to Protect – Engaging Civil Society Project (R2PCS) (2006) PowerPoint presentation.
  • Roberts, A. (2002) Counter-terrorism, Armed Force and the Laws of War. Survival 44 (1), 7–32.
  • Schoenekase, D.P. (2004) Targeting Decisions Regarding Human Shields. Military Review (Sept./Oct.), 26–31.
  • Singer, P.W. (2004) War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 42, 521–39.
  • Slaughter Burley, A.-M. (1993) International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda. American Journal of International Law 87 (2), 205–39.
  • Smith, T.W. (2008) Protecting Civilians or Soldiers? Humanitarian Law and the Economy of Risk in Iraq. International Studies Perspectives 9 (2), 144–64.
  • Stahn, C. (2003) Security Council Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001): What They Say and What They Do Not Say. European Journal of International Law Discussion Forum.
  • Stromseth, J.E. (2003) Law and Force after Iraq: A Transitional Moment. American Journal of International Law 97 (3), 628–42.
  • Tannenwald, N. (2005) Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo. International Security 29 (4), 5–49.
  • Thomas, W. (2001) The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Waltz, K.W. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison Wesley.
  • Weitz, R. (2007) Israeli Airstrike in Syria: International Reactions. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. At https:/, accessed July 10, 2008.

1 thought on “International Armed Conflict”

  1. A growing theme in commentary on international law, however, is that contemporary controversies reflect something more profound and problematic. Indeed, some authors, noting the frequent controversies over important legal norms, portray the armed conflict regimes as in crisis. Several issues addressed in this essay could support such a claim. One is humanitarian intervention, which pits compelling interests in human rights against traditional norms of sovereignty and nonintervention, and the interests of systemic order they serve. While there has always been tension between the goals of justice and order in the international system, shifting consensus on how that balance should be struck, as illustrated by the growing support for the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, signals a reconceptualization of the core norms of sovereignty whose implications can hardly be overstated.

Leave a Comment