Talk:Declaration of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 1917

I can't seem to find any info on a "Border War" in 1917. Is this the Allied intervention in the Russian counterrevolution, or something else? I've got dates of 1919-1921 for that. -- ESP 18:57 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That would be the "punitive expedition" against Pancho Villa's forces conducted by the US, led by John Pershing. - Hephaestos 19:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ah, the Mexican Border War. OK, cool. -- ESP 19:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've tried to make this article less Ameri-centric and reflect the historical developments around declarations of war in international war as occurred in the twentieth century. Alex756

Corrected some information...

Bush, like every other President since Nixon has asserted that he has the right to commit American troops without congressional authorization. Nevertheless, he did not "ignore" the War Powers Act, as the Congressional authorization of force against Iraq satisfied the provision of the War Powers Act.

Second, the issue of whether the U.S. government can commit troops in the absence of a declaration of war, is not "unsettled." U.S. governments have done so numerous times since WWII, and there is *no* reason to think that there will be any constitutional interpretation that would limit this in the near future.

Roadrunner

[edit] Iraq?

"Having refused to sign the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Iraq has remained in a state of war with Israel ever since."

Does this apply after the U.S. invasion?

Sir Elderberry 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] separation of U.S. info

I cut the U.S. info and pasted it into Declarations of war in the United States. The U.S. info was dwarfing the rest of the info in this article. Also, I intend to add more info to the U.S. section. Kingturtle 05:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] geneva and hague still operative

This article needs some major work. It comes down heavily on the side that declarations of war are obsolete and that sovereignty lies in international bodies. Geneva and Hague are still in effect, despite efforts to bend them to modern political sentiment.

The broader argument is what form a valid declaration of war may take. I also don't see how a Declaration of War can be seen as an impediment to peace rather than as a protection of combatants and non-combatants. Cecropia 03:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on section 3 ("Current declarations")

As the article seems to be technically about formal declarations of war, in the public international law meaning of this term, I am not sure of the accuracy of the references to Korean war and to Yom Kippur war. Though I have no special knowledge of the topic, a web search has induced me to find out that, according to a lecturer at Liverpool University (see http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/act-of-war.html ) the very last "declaration of war" in the world was the declaration of USSR against Japan. I have chosen to do no edit at all in the text, but to leave a hint of my doubts on this discussion page. --French Tourist 18:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Finland vs. UK

On the 'Continuation War' article, it is mentioned that "The United Kingdom declared a war against Finland on December 6, 1941, but did not participate actively"

I seem to remember that the war wasn't formally ended... should it be counted to the list?

[edit] US: The power to declare war vs. the power to authorize military action

I just read something in the latest (11/21/05) issue of National Review that suprised me (from a review of John Yoo's The Powers of War and Peace, p. 48). Like most people, I've always assumed that the power to declare war meant the power to authorize the use of military force. Not so:

Yoo begins by debunking the view enshrined in the War Powers Resolution that, except in self-defense, U.S. forces may not be sent into combat for more than 60 days without explicit congressional authorization. He argues that the Constitution contains “no textually mandated process for going to war,” a claim that may shock readers used to extolling Article I’s provision that Congress shall have power “to declare War.” Yoo freely acknowledges that only Congress may declare war, but, tying his argument closely to the debates and practices at the time of the Framing, asserts that the power to declare war was conceived, not as a check on the executive, but as an authority to “define relationships and status under international law”: to announce belligerent status, forbid commerce with an enemy, etc. This ritualistic aspect of the declaration of war is well captured in Winston Churchill’s famous aphorism: “When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.”

In the 18th century, open hostilities regularly preceded “declared” war by years. King George II, the last English sovereign to lead his troops in battle, defeated the French at Dettingen in 1743, nearly a full year before war with France was officially declared. Similarly, Major George Washington fought his celebrated action at Fort Necessity two years before Parliament “declared” the Seven Years War. In the minds of the Founders, then, “to declare war” had a meaning very different from “to authorize the use of force.” As Yoo explains, the idea that Congress’s power to declare war would be used to restrict the president’s ability to send forces into combat “does not appear” in the debates of the Founding period.

--Counterrevolutionary 23:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain the relevance of the fact that the phrase "declaration of war" does not appear in the Constitution? The following passage makes little sense to me, as it quotes the Constitution as granting Congress the right to declare war. Is the difference between the noun and verb form of "declare" in any way important? "The term 'Declaration of War' is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take." MJFiorello 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A "Declaration of War" is a diplomat formally reading a piece of paper out to a foreign diplomat or head of state, in accordance with international law. The power to "Declare War" is the power to order US diplomats to deliver the message. Like any warrant the important thing is what happens next. Authorizations of military action are internal and sent to the Department of Defence. In my personal view, done properly both pieces of paper should probably be written by the US Government when starting a war. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All other countries have the power to declare war on the USA, being international law this is not covered by the US Constitution. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I removed the following:

"In the twentieth century, the concept of war as such has been gradually replaced with the authorized use of force as recognized under international norms."

This is complete twaddle; war has always been "authorized" by the aggressor; war is now no more or less "authorized" than it ever was. Widespread backing for a war, even UN backing, does not make it anything other than war. -- The Anome 16:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger discussion?

Someone has slapped on a couple of merge tags, without explaining why they think the merges are good ideas. Personally, I think that is irresponsible. The merge tag expands to tell readers to go to the talk page to join the discussion. Well, who the heck is supposed to initiate the discussion, if it isn't the person who placed the tag? Are the rest of us supposed to guess why you think merging is a good idea?'

A declaration of war has a specific meaning. A declation of war is not the same as a war, it is not the same as a police action. Even though the modern fashion is to go to war without a formal declaration or war (World War 2 is the last declared war the US fought...) formal declarations are still important, and merits an article of its own. -- Geo Swan 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the Merge tag. Obvious reasons: police action is defined as entering war without declaring war!!! Same goes for authorized use of force. That it is too short is not an argument; it must be enlarged. However, maybe we could consider merging those two articles together? Lapaz 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing war query

I am unconvinced that Netherlands and Portugal were at war from 1567, and can find nothing on the referenced 1567 page; war between Netherlands and Spain commenced the following year, and does not appear to have involved Portugal. Please convince me! Moreover, the Netherlands have actually signed a peace treaty with Portugal after 1567 - a peace in 1661/2 brokered by Charles II, involving a lot of compensation paid to the Netherlands by Portugal, though this was at least in part to resolve the dispute regarding Portugal's reconquest of Brazil. Ron H-W

I believe that Israel and Lebanon/Syria have been in a state of war since 1948, not 1973 (looking for references to back that up) Nloth 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands did not exist back in 1567, unless there is a referance confirming the fact that these two countries are in a state of war, I will remove the sentence from the ongoing wars list. --TimBits 17:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have actually read something about an ongoing war between Portugal and the Netherlands which had begun in the 16th century. Not sure about where I read it, though.--MiguelFC 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berwick upon Tweed

I have seen it alleged that Berwick upon Tweed is specifically mentioned in Britain's 1914 declaration of war against Germany but not in the peace treaties of 1918/9, This is similar to its inclusion in the 1853 declaration of the Crimean War and its omission from the 1856 peace treaty. Surely if inclusion in these treaties was not needed under the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, then inclusion in these declarations was redundant? Ron H-W

The story is untrue - see details in Berwick-upon-Tweed Nloth 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sept 14 2001 not a declaration of war

I removed a paragraph from the current declarations subsection that I consider misleading. It said that "strictly speaking" the September 14, 2001 Congressional authorization was not a declaration of war. I think it is misleading and POV to imply it is. Possibly POV too. The Bush administration has argued that Bush can assume wartime powers. And the other two branches of the US government are challenging the constitutionality of his actions. -- Geo Swan 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Feeling Bound"

Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war.

Poorly written nonsense, original research, and POV. patsw 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Public-relations friendly"

Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly.

Poorly written nonsense, original research, and POV. patsw 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-war wars" -> "Undeclared wars"

The section title "Non-war wars" sounds very silly. It is actually referring to undeclare wars, which makes more sense given the article title. I'm making the change. Patiwat 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria

Bulgaria has NEVER declared war on Hungary or the USSR. There were some mistakes about Bulgarian involvement in WWII that I have just corrected. 88.80.130.106 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel <-> Lebanon

The article reads that "Israel has been at war with Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War", but Lebanon didn't participate in that war, so I'm removing Lebanon from that sentence.

210.118.133.65 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) THE TITLE ; The UN and war DESCRIPTION OF 2ND PARAGRAPH North Korea invaded South Korea on 15 June 1950.

PLEASE CORRECT THE DATE FROM "15 JUNE 1950" TO "25 JUNE 1950".

yb3kim@hmd.co.kr

[edit] NPOV

Not everybody agrees with the claim that wars without declarations of war are constitutional. [1] I edited the article to reflect a NPOV. Robocracy 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK war declaration to Finland

There seems to be a mistake, as UK has declared war twice to Finland, namely both 6th and 7th of December. Or maybe the British forgot on the 7th they already declared the war on the previous day?

[edit] Effects of Declaration War

I believe the effects of Declaring War should be added. These may include the countries becoming enemies, warriors gaining the right to kill enemy soldiers and destroy property, cancellation of treaties, cancellation of debts between the countries, cancellation of contracts, enemy aliens losing the right to sue, tradition of enemy aliens being given the a few days to leave, internment and/or expulsion of enemy aliens, bans on trade, withdraw of diplomats, activation of the Geneva Conventions + protocols, activation of the Hague Conventions, activation of the traditional laws of war, right to capture enemy ships and bans on passage of enemy ships. There may be other effects that I do not know about. Will an expert please supply details and citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Swallow (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] category:euphemisms

Why is this page under "euphemisms"? I can't see how it is one. --MacRusgail 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of a Declaration War

Will an expert please add a list of the many effects of a Declaration of War. (Posted by User:Andrew Swallow to the article). —Random832 06:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Useful Reference on this Topic

May I suggest that those who are at work on this page have a look at the very useful book by Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (1998, Uni. of Illinois Press)? Hallett challenges the view that declarations of war can only be formal (i.e. empty, without purpose) and claims that it is just that for various reasons Europeans and Americans have, since about the sixteenth century, tended to forget what they were once for. He cites practices of declaring war going back to the ancient Greeks and the Jews of the Old Testament, which examples could provide a useful addition to the 'background' section (which as I write doesn't reach back before the Renaissance). Hallett traces the process of forgetting in theory and practice and discusses a number of functions -- military, political, diplomatic and moral -- that *reasoned* declarations of war (like the Declaration of Indpendence in the USA) have fulfilled in the past, and might yet fulfil.-- M. H. d. Ä. 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.10.4 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008(UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is suffering from some major POV issues and, by extension, citation issues:

"How Not To Declare War" - Section needs a better title, and citations (it has none)

"Power of the purse"

-"The problem, of course, is that a budget debate and appropriation is an exercise of the "power of the purse," and not an exercise of the power to declare war formally and perfectly." - Sentence is POV, no citation

"An 'Authorization to Use Armed Forces' Resolution"

-"In the United States, and in Britain since 19 March 2003, a different speech act is used to accomplish the same imperfect objective. After the president or prime minister has decided to engage in a military action, he requests a resolution from the Congress or Parliament 'authorizing the use of the Armed Forces.' Once approved, as it always is, the mission goes forward." - The POV / citation issues with this sentence speak are self-evident.

[edit] POV Dispute

1. "How Not To Declare War" - Section needs a better title, and citations (it has none)

Agreed. Citations added.

2. "Power of the Purse" is a standard term in British and American constitutional discussions. See the Wikipedia entry for more information.

3. "The problem, of course, is that a budget debate and appropriation is an exercise of the "power of the purse," and not an exercise of the power to declare war formally and perfectly." - Sentence is POV, no citation

No point of view is expressed in this statement nor is a citation possible because the statement simply draws a logical conclusion from the terms used. If a legislature passes an appropriations bill funding a military operation, that appropriations bill (i.e., that exercise of the legislature's "power of the purse") CAN be considered as functionally equivalent to a formal declaration of war, but it CANNOT be considered as a formal declaration of war. In order to be formal and perfect, a declaration must use the word "declared" or another form of the verb.

Basically, the sentence makes the logical point that an apple is not an orange. --BwoRen (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I've reverted this article to the rewrite I undertook at the beginning of May 08 - I don't want to start a revert war so if it's changed again I won't revert the article back without further discussion. I think there is scope for further discussions and expansion of the article, but I think the previous version was overly linguistic in its focus: it did not consider holistically enough the aspects of how war is declared. Furthermore, it largely presented academic theory as fact. --Pretty Green (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)