5cjxburmr

simply by providing objective evidence of its decision to resort to force through formaldeclarations that hostilities exist between them. 54Although States generally no longer file formal declarations of war with one another,officials may make public statements that are like declarations of war in that they provide noticeof a state of hostilities. 55 For example, States may make statements that indicate their view thatthey are engaged in armed conflict in the context of reporting measures taken in the exercise oftheir inherent right of self-defense to the U.N. Security Council. 56 Similarly, the authorizationby Congress of the use of military force has been interpreted as triggering the application ofcertain parts of the law of war. 57These types of statements concerning jus ad bellum may be probative of the applicabilityof jus in bello restrictions. For example, a statement by a State indicating that it had suffered awrongful attack under jus ad bellum would also indicate that the State viewed jus in bellorestrictions as applicable to its adversary’s operations against it and its own military operationsagainst its adversary. 58Similarly, statements by States that justify the legality of their actions or assert authorityunder jus in bello rules may also provide evidence that States have the intention of conducting54 See, e.g., Convention (III) Relative to the Opening of Hostilities, art. 1, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 STAT. 2259, 2271 (“TheContracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicitwarning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration ofwar.”); Eliza Ann and others, 1 DODSON 244, 247 (Mar. 9, 1813) (a declaration of war “proves the existence ofactual hostilities on one side at least, and puts the other party also into a state of war, though he may, perhaps, thinkproper to act on the defensive only.”).55 See, e.g., Navios Corp. v. The Ulysses II, 161 F. Supp. 932, 943 (D. Md. 1958) (concluding that a speech byPresident Nasser of Egypt “of November 1, confirmed by the statement of November 3, constituted a declaration ofwar even under the technical requirements of international law.”), affirmed, 260 F.2d 959 (4th Cir. 1958).56 Refer to § 1.11.5.6 (Reporting to the U.N. Security Council).57 Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. 1, 28 (1801) (Marshall, C.J.) (“It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has itbeen denied, that congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to oursituation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must benoticed.”).58 For example, John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Remarksat Harvard Law School: Strengthening Our Security by Adhering to Our Values and Laws, Sept. 16, 2011 (“First,our definition of the conflict. As the President has said many times, we are at war with al-Qa’ida. In an indisputableact of aggression, al-Qa’ida attacked our nation and killed nearly 3,000 innocent people. And as we were remindedjust last weekend, al-Qa’ida seeks to attack us again. Our ongoing armed conflict with al-Qa’ida stems from ourright—recognized under international law—to self defense. An area in which there is some disagreement is thegeographic scope of the conflict. The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida as being restricted solely to ‘hot’ battlefields like Afghanistan. Because we are engaged in an armed conflictwith al-Qa’ida, the United States takes the legal position that —in accordance with international law—we have theauthority to take action against al-Qa’ida and its associated forces without doing a separate self-defense analysiseach time. And as President Obama has stated on numerous occasions, we reserve the right to take unilateral actionif or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the necessary actions themselves. That does not meanwe can use military force whenever we want, wherever we want. International legal principles, including respect fora state’s sovereignty and the laws of war, impose important constraints on our ability to act unilaterally—and on theway in which we can use force—in foreign territories.”).80