CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

the paradigm it has come to represent are ineffective. Another argument can be made
that whatever the incidents of breaches, the vast majority of states continue to conform
to the norm of Article 2(4) and it continues to act as a restraint on the use of armed
force. However, as the examples above illustrate, it acts as a restraint only whilst states
think it is reasonable. When they have thought that the circumstances are such as to
override the constraint of Article 2(4) then that is what they have done. As such they
are making a judgement on political or moral grounds that they contend, in the
circumstances, outweigh strict observance of the law. This, again, would suggest that
the legal paradigm has failed.
The argument having been made that the mechanisms for enforcement of the legal
paradigm are non-effective and that the paradigmatic constraint on use of force has been
widely ignored, the next section will illustrate why there has been a lack of faith in the
alternative, non-forceful, mechanisms for dispute settlement.
2.2.3.3 Lack of Faith in Institutions for Non-Forceful Settlement of Disputes.
To retain confidence in them, international institutions for peaceful dispute resolution,
like any legal body, must both be effective and be widely accepted as impartial. For it
is a fundamental principle of their sovereignty that all states are equal, as classically
stated by Chief Justice Marshall in the Antelope case: ‘No principle of general law is
more universally acknowledged than the perfect equality of nations. Russia and
Geneva * have equal rights.’ 76
Effectiveness requires universal recognition, and yet the history of the second half of the
Twentieth Century is replete with examples where states have chosen to ignore the
authority of international institutions. A clear example is offered by the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) and the 1984-1991 Nicaragua vs United States case. In 1984
Nicaragua went before the ICJ alleging that US assistance to the ‘Contra’ guerrilla
movement was, on several counts, in breach both of Customary International Law and
specific treaty obligations resulting from its 1956 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
89