sylla1

The DoW might be defined as a formal speech or document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.

Some people seem to see it as still indispensable; others, as a relic from a more chivalrous remote past.

The OP is self-explanatory; the obvious ( but not necessarily only) choices would be "yes" or "no".

Naturally, the most relevant part of any answer is the explanation of the rationale behind it; the more extensive, the best.

Thanks in advance.

Nick

War itself is a relic from a remote, barbaric past. If action has to be taken against a rogue state it should be done collectively, as part of a global police force (the UN as it used to be)

Greyter

In the USA, ALWAYS!, in my opinion. The congress, not the executive, is authorized by our constitution to declare war.

This is to ensure that the action is only taken by the sovereign will. The way things exist today, in spite of the various War Powers Acts, the executive can commit military forces at will.

This "interpretation" and the allowance of its continuation is by far the most egregious example of power accumulating in the executive branch. Once its started and allowed to continue it becomes almost impossible to reverse.

Those that quiver in delight at the thought of "progressive" presidents having the power to effect expedious social changes should consider this insidious side effect as a product of their own making.

Pedro

Article II, Section 2,of the U.S. Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces. Yet only Congress has the power to declare war.
Between these two powers lies a gray area in which presidents have exercised the prerogative to commit U.S. troops to foreign military excursions without congressional approval. The U.S. involvement in the VIETNAM WAR resulted from one such exercise of power. In response to these executive maneuvers, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution [[ You can find it in your law library under: (Pub. L.No. 93-148 [ codified at 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1541 et seq.])]], which restricts the president’s authority to involve the United States in foreign hostilities for more than 60 days without the approval of Congress.

INTERNATIONAL LAW recognizes that nations may formally and publicly proclaim a condition of armed conflict by a declaration of war, which in effect forbids all persons to aid or assist the enemy. In the United States, the Congress has the authority to declare war, and a declaration fixes a beginning date for the war. A declaration is usually preceded by a Casus belli:[Latin, Cause of war.] A term which is used in international law to describe an event or occurrence giving rise to or justifying war.
Nations will always want to appear that they are operating under the rule of law.

Fabius Maximus

I think that, in the long run, it's in every country's interests to issues a formal declaration of war. Yes, a country may be able to get the drop on her enemies a couple of times by attacking without declaring war; however, conventions like declaring war only survive as long as enough countries follow them. If a sufficient number cease declaring war, then the practice would die out altogether, and, whilst countries would be able to surprise their enemies, their enemies would also be able to surprise them, which IMHO would largely negate any advantage gained. As it is, declaring war makes it harder to surprise your enemies, but it also makes it harder for your enemies to surprise you.

Zeno

No, a formal declaration of war should not be issued unless when it serves the strategic interests of the declaring party.

pikeshot1600

Any formal declaration risks the declarant being branded an aggressor, whether it is true or not.

Reis

I think declaring that one is at war does not make much of a strategic difference.I was under the impression that by the time war is officialy declared to the public the Armies are already moving to their objectives.Again this is only what I think , please correct me if im wrong.

Zeno

I was thinking of Al-Qaeda, for instance. If they formally declared war onthe US, doesn't that change the legal status of captured Al-Qaeda members, should they ever get a fair trial?

sylla1

Just for the sake of clarity on the OP; war is declared between states, not private organizations (of any kind).

The infamous statement of the declaration of "war on terrorism" was of course just a rhetorical & propagandistic resource (analogous to let say the "war against cancer").

Another tautology: "Terrorism" (irrespectively on how it may be defined) and the US have never been at any state of "peace", obviously fundamentally because "terrorism" is not and has never been a nation ...