Jus Ad Bellum Quotes

I will always be an advocate in terms of wars of necessity. I am just much more cautious on wars of choice.

War itself is justifiable only on principles of self-preservation:

Under well-settled legal principles, lethal force against a valid military objective, in an armed conflict, is consistent with the law of war and does not, by definition, constitute an 'assassination.'

We draw the sword with a clear conscious and clean hands! Our invasion of Belgium is contrary to International Law, but this wrong – I speak openly – that we are committing – that we are committing – we will make right as soon as our military objective has been attained.

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

… it was not necessary to make any definition of "aggressor" or "self-defense." I do not think it can be done, anyway, accurately. They have been trying to do it in Europe for six or eight years, and they never have been able to accurately define " aggressor " or " self-defense.

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our War on Terrorism.

The laws of war right now say that we can respond when our country is threatened. That is what international law says.

I think the whole policy of pre-emptive war is a serious, serious mistake.

The argument that someone is a bad man is an inadequate argument for war and certainly an inadequate and unacceptable argument for regime change.

There is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.