Wikipedia lists US participation in at least eight wars or armed conflicts justified by Congress's 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF). These include wars include:

  • War in Afghanistan
  • Yemeni Civil War
  • Somali Civil War
  • War in North-West Pakistan
  • Moro conflict – Philippines
  • Iraqi Civil War
  • Syrian Civil War
  • Second Libyan Civil War

Are the basic facts correct?

Is such participation in hostilities permissible under the Hague Convention of 1907?

Is such participation in hostilities permissible under the United Nation's Charter, specifically Article 2, paragraph 4?

I'm aware that permanent UN security counsel members have veto power over any effective enforcement of the charter, and ask the question not seeking emotional condemnation but logical arguments addressing this under US and international law. Obviously the war powers act is involved, but does that act support such extensive involvement without a declaration of war?

  • Are you asking if involvement is legal under US law or international law? The answers are arguably different.
    – Dale M
    Jan 5, 2019 at 10:10
  • International law, as that's what the Hague Convention and UN Charter amount to, as I understand it. However to the extent it's important, I think national declarations like issues like the AUMF may be involved, so questions like is the AUMF equivalent to a declaration of war come up in my mind. Jan 5, 2019 at 14:06
  • I assure you that the US did a lot of military interventions without benefit of declaration of war after the Hague Conventions were ratified. If it's illegal under the Hague Conventions, the violations have been going on for a long time. Jan 7, 2019 at 16:46


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .