Editorial

Abstract

The rules governing the use of force in international relations are again being challenged by Russian incursions into Ukraine and support for separatist fighters there, as well as by the actions of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’ covering parts of Iraq and Syria and triggering responses by a combination of Iraqi/Kurdish forces supported by a US-led bombing campaign. In these dangerous times, when international law again seems to be honoured more in the breach, it is apposite that this issue of the Journal of Conflict and Security Law re-considers those rules of the jus ad bellum. Lianne Boer revisits the debate (discussed in earlier issues) about whether cyber attacks are covered by the rules, but in so doing, she points to a paradox at the heart of Article 2(4) that extends way beyond the impact on the rules of the latest developments in technology. This paradox is the result of alternating dual standards by which uses of force can be evaluated. Boer raises the question of whether this paradox could be overcome by achieving consensus in the form of authoritative statements about the content or scope of the law. It is hoped that this article will stimulate further debate about the continued validity and relevance of the most basic rules of the international legal order.