Casus Beli - an event used to justify a war

[Xenocrates]

Casus Belli ... Latin term meaning an event that provokes, leads to or is used to justify a war.

It's relevant to debate this now in the light of current events.

What is a legitimate casus beli and how can one know? What level of proof should be required?

Should there be an independent arbiter with the power to squash fraudulent casus beli's?

Can a legitimate casus beli against an organisation be used against a country with a connection to that organisation?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

1.) A legitimate casus beli comes from the theory of just war, and war as a last resort. It can include, and has included, armed action by another state, invasion, the imminent threat of invasion or attack, insult to a state, evidence of an outrageous act and many others.

The level of proof required is that it be approved by the applicable belligerent. States are not required to undergo any sort of global test. This is international relations and geopolitics, not a fourth rate courtroom.

2.) No, there is no supranational organisation of sufficient character, influence or value that could measure the life and death of a state, and nor should it. It is the sovereign right of a state to make war.

3.) Yes. War can be made on states, organisations and states that harbour, succour and support them.

In regards to Israel, a state of war has existed against Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War

 

[Babbler]

What is a legitimate casus beli and how can one know? What level of proof should be required?

Attacks against that countries interests or security.

Should there be an independent arbiter with the power to squash fraudulent casus beli's?

What use would it be?

Can a legitimate casus beli against an organisation be used against a country with a connection to that organisation?

Depends on the connection with its government. Just operating or cooperation with rouge elements in the government shouldn't be grounds for war. Close cooperation clearly is, however.

 

[Xenocrates]

1.)

The level of proof required is that it be approved by the applicable belligerent. States are not required to undergo any sort of global test. This is international relations and geopolitics, not a fourth rate courtroom.

2.) No, there is no supranational organisation of sufficient character, influence or value that could measure the life and death of a state, and nor should it. It is the sovereign right of a state to make war.

3.) Yes. War can be made on states, organisations and states that harbour, succour and support them.

In regards to Israel, a state of war has existed against Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War

1) So only the aggresor needs to find the case compelling? If I buy a dodgy burger from a fast food joint, I can't just go in and, at gun point, take compensation. You are arguing that in cases of war there shouldn't be any legal process. Why stop there? Why not apply this to every crime?

2) I agree, the UN has been a waste of space in these matters so far, although it's not a 100% failure in social and poverty programmes. I was arguing for setting up a new body.

3) I refer you to the case of the "Cuba 5''. Basically these 5 men were sent by Cuba to the US to expose terrorist groups operating from Miami. They found the evidence and presented it to the US government and they are charged and convicted of espionage by a kangaroo court in Florida. Casus beli against the US methinks.

 

[Xenocrates]

Attacks against that countries interests or security.

1) What use would it be?

2) Depends on the connection with its government. Just operating or cooperation with rouge elements in the government shouldn't be grounds for war. Close cooperation clearly is, however.

Who's to define the country's interests? There is no safeguard against a country defining its interests very broadly.

The use, if it could be made to work, and we have legal processes for other complaints so it could, is that illegitimate casus belis are exposed and wars are stopped. A case could be made against the CIA for its adventures in latin america.

 

[CaptainF]

A Casus Belli is whatever the hell you want it to be.

Unfortunately for many of us, that is.

 

[civ2]

Dawgphood
I just took a look on your sig.
It quite well formulates a viewpoint of an ordinary Palestinian.

 

[Elta]

Casus Beli ....hmmmm latin - spanish - english translation
beep beep beep beep beep
the Elta literal translation machine says: Cause Fight

 

[Xenocrates]

Elta: It means a reason to start a war. Everyone has a reason, from the Japanese to the Israelis. Sometimes, with the benefit of history we find that the reason for a war was rubbish.

I wanted to discuss good reasons and bad reasons for war and how we should deal with the bad reasons.

 

[Elta]

Elta: It means a reason to start a war. Everyone has a reason, from the Japanese to the Israelis. Sometimes, with the benefit of history we find that the reason for a war was rubbish.

I wanted to discuss good reasons and bad reasons for war and how we should deal with the bad reasons.

I said literal meaning
Casus = causa = cause
Beli = pelea = fight
granted I am no latin major but I do have a medical knowlege of latin terms and the spanish helps
Granted it means a reason to start a war in a english context, like malpractic

In law, malpractice is type of tort in which the misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance of a professional, under a duty to act, fails to follow generally accepted professional standards, and that breach of duty is the proximate cause of injury to a plaintiff who suffers damages. It is committed by a professional or her/his subordinates or agents on behalf of a client or patient that causes damages to the client or patient.

Then agian Mal = bad in spanish + practice = badpractice

I wasn't undermining your post just showing my latin leetness

 

[Xenocrates]

Sorry Elta, I thought you were asking for clarification.

You're right about the literal translation BTW.