Why Is War Still Legal in the 21st Century?

And What Does That Say About Human Rights?

In a world that prides itself on progress, diplomacy, and universal declarations of human rights, one disturbing reality persists: war is still legal. Not only tolerated, but institutionally structured, budgeted for, and normalized—even in international law.

This raises a haunting contradiction:

How can we claim to uphold human rights while preserving the legality of war, the greatest violation of them all?

War: Still a Legal Instrument of State Power

Despite the horrors of the 20th century—two World Wars, nuclear devastation, genocides—the global community has not outlawed war. Instead, we’ve built rules to govern it through:

• The Geneva Conventions (how to conduct war “humanely”)
• The UN Charter (permits war in self-defense or with Security Council approval)
• International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of armed conflict.

In other words, the world has agreed:

You may kill, so long as you do it under the right circumstances.

This legal framing makes war not a crime, but a conditional right, as if violence on a massive scale can be "regulated" rather than prevented.

The Human Rights Paradox

Let’s consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. It guarantees:

• The right to life (Article 3)
• Freedom from torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5)
• The right to security (Article 3 again)
• The right to education, work, and dignity

Now ask:

What human right survives on a battlefield?

• War systematically:
• Destroys life and livelihood
• Displaces communities
• Targets civilians under euphemisms like “collateral damage”
• Cuts off access to education, healthcare, and stability
• Enables torture, rape, and genocide under fog-of-war cover

Yet, we treat war not as the total negation of human rights, but as a political option—a tragic but permissible extension of policy.

Why War Remains Legal

1. Power Structures Built on Violence

Modern states emerged through war. Many still define their strength militarily. Weapons are symbols of power, and military-industrial complexes are deeply embedded in national economies.

2. The Myth of the Just War

We still cling to the idea that some wars are noble, necessary, or redemptive. This allows powerful nations to frame invasions as “liberations,” and bombings as “defense of freedom.”

3. International Law is Not Neutral

The UN Security Council, the body that determines legal war, is dominated by five permanent members (P5)—the most militarized countries on Earth. They hold veto power. If war were outlawed, they’d lose their primary leverage.

Legalizing Peace: A Missing Global Commitment

There have been efforts to outlaw war:

• The Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928 tried to do so — but lacked enforcement.
• The UN Charter encourages peaceful resolution — but makes exceptions that keep war viable.

What we don’t have is a binding international treaty that:

• Categorically criminalizes war as an institution, not just war crimes
• Shifts global systems from security by deterrence to security by cooperation
• Treats war as a failure of humanity, not a strategic tool

A Human Rights System That Tolerates War Is Incomplete

The credibility of the global human rights framework is in question as long as:

• It condemns torture, but permits aerial bombings
• It protects children, yet tolerates war zones
• It advocates peace, but is governed by nations that profit from perpetual war

Evolve or Contradict

It is no longer morally or intellectually defensible to treat war as legal in a world that claims to honor universal human rights.

We cannot be both warriors and humanitarians. We must choose a path—or forever walk in contradiction.

Peace must be more than an aspiration. It must become law. Until then, human rights remain conditional, fragile, and incomplete.