Why States No Longer Declare War?- Fazal

Study Notes: Why States No Longer Declare War — Tanisha Fazal (with Case Studies)

1. The Decline of Formal War Declarations in the Modern Era

• Key Argument: States no longer formally declare war, not because war itself has vanished, but because declaring it has become strategically and legally disadvantageous.

• This shift marks a departure from 19th and early 20th century diplomacy, where formal war declarations were commonplace and expected.

• Fazal argues that today, war persists in practice, but not in name—resulting in legal and ethical ambiguity.

Case Study: The United States Post-1945

• The U.S. has not issued a formal declaration of war since WWII, despite extensive military involvement:

  • Korean War (1950–1953) – Framed as a “police action” under UN auspices.

  • Vietnam War – Conducted through congressional resolutions (e.g., Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), avoiding formal war language.

  • Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan (2001) – Presented as “operations” for counterterrorism and regime change.

• These euphemisms allowed the U.S. to conduct large-scale warfare without triggering the legal and moral obligations tied to war declarations.

2. The Rising Cost of Declaring War

• Declaring war has become politically and economically costly (p. 557).

• Once a war is officially declared:

  • States can face international sanctions, loss of trade, or withdrawal of diplomatic ties.

  • It invites public scrutiny and domestic political backlash.

  • It also obligates compliance with jus in bello (law of war), increasing operational and legal risk.

Case Study: Russia and Ukraine

• In 2014, Russia did not declare war on Ukraine, even as it annexed Crimea and backed separatist movements in Donbas.

• Similarly, the 2022 full-scale invasion was labeled a “special military operation.”

  • This deliberate avoidance of the war label insulated Russia from triggering the full international legal framework and complicated global responses.

  • It also allowed Russia to frame its actions as defensive and domestically legitimate, despite international condemnation.

3. Legal Constraints: Jus in Bello and Its Consequences

• The expansion of jus in bello has created legal landmines for states engaging in warfare (p. 558).

• These include obligations around:

  • Protection of civilians.

  • Prohibition of torture.

  • Restrictions on weapons use.

  • Fair treatment of prisoners of war.

• Fazal suggests that as these constraints grow, states have increasing incentives to evade them by denying that war exists (p. 592).

Historical Context: The Cold War

• During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in proxy wars rather than direct confrontation, partly to avoid triggering formal war obligations.

  • Examples: Vietnam (U.S.), Afghanistan (Soviet Union).

• The absence of declarations during these conflicts helped preserve plausible deniability, and maintained the legal fiction of peace between nuclear-armed superpowers.

4. Strategic Avoidance and the Reframing of Conflict

• States now rebrand wars to bypass international law and domestic constraints:

  • “Peacekeeping missions,” “preemptive strikes,” “counterterrorism operations.”

  • These terms allow states to bypass legislative approvals or dilute oversight mechanisms.

• By avoiding formal war declarations, states preserve greater flexibility in tactics, alliances, and public relations.

Case Study: The Global War on Terror

• The U.S. framed its post-9/11 response as a “global war on terror”, not a war between states.

• This categorization allowed for:

  • Indefinite detentions (e.g., Guantanamo Bay).

  • Targeted drone strikes across multiple countries (Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia) without formal war declarations.

  • Expanded executive powers with limited congressional input.

5. Consequences of War-Avoidance Behavior

• Normative ambiguity: Without formal declarations, it becomes unclear:

  • When wars begin or end.

  • Who counts as a lawful combatant.

  • What laws apply in grey-zone conflicts.

• Accountability is weakened, especially in asymmetric warfare or conflicts involving non-state actors.

• Fazal warns this trend may erode international legal norms, weakening the integrity of the global rules-based order.

6. Summary Table: Why States Avoid Declaring War

Key Quotes for Essay Use

• “States no longer declare war because they are extremely costly, so they deny that a formal war is occurring.” (p. 557)

• “Jus in bello (international law) has made it financially crippling to declare war.” (p. 558)

• “As the constraints of jus in bello grow in number, states may seek to exempt themselves from that law by avoiding a formal state war.” (p. 592)

Conclusion: War Without the Name

Fazal’s analysis reveals a strategic transformation in how war is conducted in the 21st century. The expansion of international law, combined with the political costs of open warfare, has produced an era where states fight without naming the fight. Case studies from the Cold War to the present show that undeclared wars are not anomalies, but a normalized tool of statecraft in a legally constrained world. The implications are profound: legal accountability is weakened, democratic oversight is bypassed, and the very definition of war is becoming blurred.