The Remedy · 2026
Three questions, asked plainly and answered honestly. Why isn't war illegal? Why doesn't the law bite? And who, in the end, is supposed to enforce it?
This is the fact that almost nobody knows, and it changes the shape of everything that follows. Aggressive war is already against the law — and has been for nearly a century.
In 1928, in the Kellogg–Briand Pact, the nations of the world renounced war as an instrument of national policy. At Nuremberg, the judges went further: waging aggressive war was named the supreme international crime, the one that contains within itself the accumulated evil of every other war crime. And in 1945 the Charter of the United Nations turned the principle into a standing rule. Article 2(4) requires every member state to refrain from the threat or use of force against any other. Not "unjust war." Force — full stop — with only two exceptions: genuine self-defence against armed attack, and action authorised by the Security Council.
The prohibition is about as sweeping as law gets. So the puzzle is not the one most people assume.
"The puzzle is not the absence of a law.
It is the absence of a bailiff."
And the law, even unenforced, has done real work. Before 1928, conquest transferred legal title: war was a recognised method of acquiring territory and collecting debts. Afterwards, it stopped paying. Annexation by force is now almost never recognised by other states — Crimea being the test case of our own era. Interstate conquest, once the ordinary business of nations, collapsed as a category. What the ban changed was less whether states fight than what fighting can lawfully win them. Legal scholars Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro have documented this transformation in detail: a rule everyone mocked as toothless quietly rewired the incentives of the entire international system.
A prohibition without enforcement is not nothing. But it is not enough. Which raises the second question.
Three reasons — and it is important to see that none of them is an accident. The enforcement gap is not a flaw in the design. It is the design: the price the system paid to exist at all.
The UN Charter vests collective security in a Security Council where five states hold a veto. This was the price of getting the great powers inside the building — the League of Nations had failed partly by lacking them. The structural consequence: the system can discipline a mid-sized aggressor, and can do nothing about a permanent member or its clients. The sheriff's badge was pinned on the likeliest suspects.
Since 2018 the International Criminal Court has had jurisdiction over the crime of aggression — but on far weaker terms than for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It cannot reach the leaders of states that stay outside the treaty, and member states can opt out. In July 2025, a cross-regional group of states proposed harmonising the Court's jurisdiction so aggression would be treated like the other three crimes. The proposal was postponed to 2029 — with France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and New Zealand among the most vocal opponents. Democracies with expeditionary habits, note. Not only autocracies keep the law weak.
Anticipatory self-defence. Protection of nationals. Intervention by invitation. Humanitarian necessity. Almost every modern war is fought under a legal justification of some kind, so the argument becomes contested rather than absent. This is a very different failure mode from lawlessness — and in some ways a more corrosive one, because it lets every aggressor claim the law is on their side.
The remedies within the system are real, and worth pursuing. The 2029 review can be won. Special tribunals can route around captured institutions — as the tribunal established in 2025 to try the crime of aggression against Ukraine has shown. Aggression can be written into national criminal codes, so that leaders travel at their own risk. Veto-restraint initiatives can raise the political price of shielding an aggressor. And the enforcement that actually operates today — non-recognition of conquest, frozen assets, exclusion from the systems on which trade and finance depend — can be made more automatic and less dependent on great-power alignment.
But every one of these remedies shares a weakness. Each asks the powerful to consent to their own restraint. Domestic law works because a state stands above the parties. There is no sovereign above sovereigns — and there is not going to be one. So the honest answer to the second question leads directly to the third.
This is the oldest answer, and the only one that does not require the powerful to agree. Immanuel Kant made the wager in 1795: if the consent of those who bear the costs of war — who fight it, pay for it, are bombed in it — were required to declare it, wars would become rare. Publics vote their own skin, where cabinets vote their ambitions.
The population-as-bailiff is not a metaphor. It has a toolkit, and a record.
Wars are made of compliance — soldiers who fight, dockers who load, engineers who build. When the compliance stops, the war stops. The German naval mutinies at Kiel in 1918 did not merely end a war; they ended an empire. Dockworkers in Italy and Sweden have refused to load arms bound for Yemen. Every act of participation in aggression is a decision someone can decline to make.
Sustained public opposition genuinely constrained and ultimately ended American participation in Vietnam. The nuclear freeze movement of the early 1980s shifted what leaders could politically pursue, and helped prepare the ground for real arms-control treaties. Research on civil resistance finds that mass nonviolent campaigns succeed at roughly twice the rate of armed ones — and that very few campaigns which sustainedly mobilise even a few percent of a population fail.
The sanctions that states apply to aggressors have a civilian analogue: divestment, boycott, professional refusal, evidence-gathering. The global anti-apartheid campaign was a population-driven sanctions regime that governments were eventually dragged into. Today, open-source investigators give ordinary citizens an evidentiary power that once belonged only to intelligence agencies — and their work feeds tribunals directly.
Three honest problems — because this argument is only worth making honestly.
First, the asymmetry: civilian enforcement works where publics can organise, strike and vote, which means it disciplines open societies more easily than closed ones. The least bad answer is that even closed societies leak — their soldiers surrender, their emigrants organise, their elites hold assets abroad that citizen-driven pressure can reach. Second, the bailiff can be for the war: publics are not reliably peaceful, and nationalism is precisely the technology for converting a population into war's constituency rather than its constraint. Third, a crowd is not an institution: movements that stay unorganised evaporate, and spontaneity does not scale.
The answer to all three is the same, and it is the design principle of this movement. Do not rely on the public mobilising during the crisis — when passions, censorship and fear are at their peak. Build the veto in beforehand. Standing commitments, made in peacetime, that trigger automatically: professional codes that make participation in aggression a matter of personal refusal; divestment machinery that switches on when aggression is found, rather than being rebuilt from scratch each time; and above all, a public, named, growing record of people who have committed in advance. Emergencies favour the state. Procedures favour the public.
"Emergencies favour the state.
Procedures favour the public."
That is what the declaration is. Not a petition to the powerful — a pre-commitment by the public. Bertrand Russell understood that peace is built from individual refusals, and the prohibition of war survived the twentieth century not because it was enforced from above but because enough people in enough countries held it up from below. Every signature is a unit of enforcement, recorded in peacetime, before it is needed. The law against war is written. The question it has been waiting a century to settle is who will serve it.
Sources: General Treaty for Renunciation of War (Kellogg–Briand Pact), 1928; Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1946; Charter of the United Nations, arts. 2(4), 51 and ch. VII; Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Assembly of States Parties resolution ICC-ASP/S-1/Res.1 (9 July 2025) postponing review of the aggression amendments to a Special Session in 2029; Council of Europe agreement establishing the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, 2025; Oona Hathaway & Scott Shapiro, The Internationalists (2017); Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (1795); Erica Chenoweth & Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works (2011) — whose participation findings concern campaigns against domestic regimes, a scope this page does not overstate.
Enforcement built in peacetime, by the people who bear the costs of war. That is the remedy. It begins with a name on a public record.
Sign the Declaration → Read the Manifesto