5cjxburmr

• the utilization of the occasion to withdraw forces from an unfavorable positioncommanded by the enemy. 20812.13.1.2 Process of Denunciation – Warning Requirement. Absent urgentnecessity, a delay should occur between denunciation of the armistice and the resumption ofhostilities. 209 This delay allows the denunciation to act as warning and to ensure that the partyrecommencing hostilities does not rely on the other party’s compliance with the armistice as away of facilitating its offensive military operations.It would be dishonorable and perfidious for either party, without warning, to resumehostilities during the period of an armistice, with or without a formal denunciation thereof,except in case of urgency and upon convincing proof of intentional and serious violation of itsterms by the other party. 210Nevertheless, under Article 40 of the Hague IV Regulations, upon definite proof of sucha violation of an armistice, if the delay incident to formal denunciation and warning seems likelyto give the violator a substantial advantage of any kind, the other party is free to resumehostilities without warning and with or without a formal denunciation. 211 For example, the lawof war does not prohibit armed forces that reasonably believe an adversary is committingarmistice violations from taking necessary and proportionate action in self-defense immediatelyin response.12.13.1.3 Process of Denunciation – Approval of Co-Belligerents Not Required.A belligerent faced with serious violations of an armistice is not required to obtain thepermission of its co-belligerents, even though those States may be parties to the armisticeagreement, before recommencing hostilities. 212208 1958 UK MANUAL 456 (“A deliberate advance or construction of works beyond the line agreed upon, theseizure of any point outside the lines, or the utilization of the occasion to withdraw troops from an unfavourableposition commanded by the enemy, or any violation of an express condition would, as a rule, constitute a gravebreach [of an armistice].”).209 1958 UK MANUAL 458 (Unless there be great urgency, there should always be a delay between denunciation ofthe armistice and resumption of hostilities.”).210 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 493 (“It would be an outrageous act of perfidy for either party, withoutwarning, to resume hostilities during the period of an armistice, with or without a formal denunciation thereof,except in case of urgency and upon convincing proof of intentional and serious violation of its terms by the otherparty.”).211 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 493 (“Nevertheless, under the article last above quoted, upon definiteproof of such a violation of the armistice, if the delay incident to formal denunciation and warning seems likely togive the violator a substantial advantage of any kind, the other party is free to resume hostilities without warning andwith or without a formal denunciation.”).212 For example, Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Authority of the President Under Domestic andInternational Law to Use Military Force Against Iraq, 26 OPINIONS OF THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 143, 174-75(Oct. 23, 2002) (“The missile strikes in 1993 and 1998 serve as clear examples of the suspension of a cease-fire anda resumption of hostilities due to serious violations by Iraq. … It is our understanding based on information suppliedby the Department of Defense that in neither case did the United States obtain the express agreement of all of theother members of the Persian Gulf War coalition before suspending the cease-fire and using force.”).857