5cjxburmr

1.10.2.2 Force of Customary International Law Under U.S. Domestic Law. Thecustomary law of war is part of U.S. law insofar as it is not inconsistent with any treaty to whichthe United States is a Party, or a controlling executive or legislative act. 1781.11 JUS AD BELLUMThe law of war has been categorized into jus ad bellum (law concerning the resort toforce) and jus in bello (law concerning conduct during war). 179 Although jus ad bellum is anessential part of the law of war to consider in the political process of whether to resort to militaryforce, this manual focuses on jus in bello. 180 Although jus in bello rules generally operateindependently of whether a side has comported with jus ad bellum in the resort to force, parts ofjus ad bellum are relevant to jus in bello. 181This section provides a brief overview of some basic aspects of jus ad bellum. Jus adbellum issues might raise questions of national policy that, in the Executive Branch, would bedecided by the President. In U.S. practice, legal advice provided to national-level principalofficials on such issues generally would need to be addressed through interagency discussionscoordinated by the legal adviser to the National Security Council, including consultation andcoordination among senior counsel of relevant U.S. departments and agencies.1.11.1 Jus ad Bellum Criteria. Certain jus ad bellum criteria have, at their philosophicalroots, drawn from principles that have been developed as part of the Just War Tradition. 182These principles have included:reclamations upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant tolegislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by Congressas legislation upon any other subject. If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require nolegislation to make them operative, to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment.”);Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 525-26 (2008) (“The responsibility for transforming an international obligationarising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress.”).178 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900) (“International law is part of our law, … where there is no treatyand no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages ofcivilized nations,”).179 See, e.g., WILLIAM O‘BRIEN, THE CONDUCT OF JUST AND LIMITED WAR 9 (1981) (defining jus ad bellum as the“doctrines concerning permissible recourse to war” and jus in bello as “the just conduct of war”); MICHAELWALZER, JUST AND UNJUST WARS 21 (1977) (“War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons stateshave for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt. The first kind of judgment is adjectival incharacter: we say that a particular war is just or unjust. The second is adverbial: we say that a war is being foughtjustly or unjustly. Medieval writers made the difference a matter of prepositions, distinguishing jus ad bellum, thejustice of war, from jus in bello, justice in war.”). But see Robert Kolb, Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum/jus inbello, 37 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF THE RED CROSS 553 (Sept.-Oct. 1997) (“The august solemnity of Latin conferson the terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello the misleading appearance of being centuries old. In fact, theseexpressions were only coined at the time of the League of Nations and were rarely used in doctrine or practice untilafter the Second World War, in the late 1940s to be precise.”).180 Refer to § 1.1.2 (Scope).181 Refer to § 3.5 (Relationship Between Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum).182 Refer to § 1.6.4 (Just War Tradition).39