Talk:Declaration of war/Archive 1

1917
I can't seem to find any info on a "Border War" in 1917. Is this the Allied intervention in the Russian counterrevolution, or something else? I've got dates of 1919-1921 for that. -- ESP 18:57 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * That would be the "punitive expedition" against Pancho Villa's forces conducted by the US, led by John Pershing. - Hephaestos 19:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Mexican Border War. OK, cool. -- ESP 19:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- I've tried to make this article less Ameri-centric and reflect the historical developments around declarations of war in international war as occurred in the twentieth century. Alex756

-

Corrected some information...

Bush, like every other President since Nixon has asserted that he has the right to commit American troops without congressional authorization. Nevertheless, he did not "ignore" the War Powers Act, as the Congressional authorization of force against Iraq satisfied the provision of the War Powers Act.

Second, the issue of whether the U.S. government can commit troops in the absence of a declaration of war, is not "unsettled." U.S. governments have done so numerous times since WWII, and there is *no* reason to think that there will be any constitutional interpretation that would limit this in the near future.

Roadrunner

Iraq?
"Having refused to sign the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Iraq has remained in a state of war with Israel ever since."

Does this apply after the U.S. invasion?

Sir Elderberry 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

separation of U.S. info
I cut the U.S. info and pasted it into Declarations of war in the United States. The U.S. info was dwarfing the rest of the info in this article. Also, I intend to add more info to the U.S. section. Kingturtle 05:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

geneva and hague still operative
This article needs some major work. It comes down heavily on the side that declarations of war are obsolete and that sovereignty lies in international bodies. Geneva and Hague are still in effect, despite efforts to bend them to modern political sentiment.

The broader argument is what form a valid declaration of war may take. I also don't see how a Declaration of War can be seen as an impediment to peace rather than as a protection of combatants and non-combatants. Cecropia 03:36, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments on section 3 ("Current declarations")
As the article seems to be technically about formal declarations of war, in the public international law meaning of this term, I am not sure of the accuracy of the references to Korean war and to Yom Kippur war. Though I have no special knowledge of the topic, a web search has induced me to find out that, according to a lecturer at Liverpool University (see http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/act-of-war.html ) the very last "declaration of war" in the world was the declaration of USSR against Japan. I have chosen to do no edit at all in the text, but to leave a hint of my doubts  on this discussion page. --French Tourist 18:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finland vs. UK
On the 'Continuation War' article, it is mentioned that "The United Kingdom declared a war against Finland on December 6, 1941, but did not participate actively"

I seem to remember that the war wasn't formally ended... should it be counted to the list?

US: The power to declare war vs. the power to authorize military action
I just read something in the latest (11/21/05) issue of National Review that suprised me (from a review of John Yoo's The Powers of War and Peace, p. 48). Like most people, I've always assumed that the power to declare war meant the power to authorize the use of military force. Not so:

Yoo begins by debunking the view enshrined in the War Powers Resolution that, except in self-defense, U.S. forces may not be sent into combat for more than 60 days without explicit congressional authorization. He argues that the Constitution contains “no textually mandated process for going to war,” a claim that may shock readers used to extolling Article I’s provision that Congress shall have power “to declare War.” Yoo freely acknowledges that only Congress may declare war, but, tying his argument closely to the debates and practices at the time of the Framing, asserts that the power to declare war was conceived, not as a check on the executive, but as an authority to “define relationships and status under international law”: to announce belligerent status, forbid commerce with an enemy, etc. This ritualistic aspect of the declaration of war is well captured in Winston Churchill’s famous aphorism: “When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.”  In the 18th century, open hostilities regularly preceded “declared” war by years. King George II, the last English sovereign to lead his troops in battle, defeated the French at Dettingen in 1743, nearly a full year before war with France was officially declared. Similarly, Major George Washington fought his celebrated action at Fort Necessity two years before Parliament “declared” the Seven Years War. In the minds of the Founders, then, “to declare war” had a meaning very different from “to authorize the use of force.” As Yoo explains, the idea that Congress’s power to declare war would be used to restrict the president’s ability to send forces into combat “does not appear” in the debates of the Founding period. --Counterrevolutionary 23:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain the relevance of the fact that the phrase "declaration of war" does not appear in the Constitution? The following passage makes little sense to me, as it quotes the Constitution as granting Congress the right to declare war. Is the difference between the noun and verb form of "declare" in any way important? "The term 'Declaration of War' is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution. Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take." MJFiorello 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A "Declaration of War" is a diplomat formally reading a piece of paper out to a foreign diplomat or head of state, in accordance with international law. The power to "Declare War" is the power to order US diplomats to deliver the message. Like any warrant the important thing is what happens next. Authorizations of military action are internal and sent to the Department of Defence. In my personal view, done properly both pieces of paper should probably be written by the US Government when starting a war. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All other countries have the power to declare war on the USA, being international law this is not covered by the US Constitution. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I removed the following:
 * "In the twentieth century, the concept of war as such has been gradually replaced with the authorized use of force as recognized under international norms."

This is complete twaddle; war has always been "authorized" by the aggressor; war is now no more or less "authorized" than it ever was. Widespread backing for a war, even UN backing, does not make it anything other than war. -- The Anome 16:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger discussion?
Someone has slapped on a couple of merge tags, without explaining why they think the merges are good ideas. Personally, I think that is irresponsible. The merge tag expands to tell readers to go to the talk page to join the discussion. Well, who the heck is supposed to initiate the discussion, if it isn't the person who placed the tag? Are the rest of us supposed to ''guess why you think merging is a good idea?'

A declaration of war has a specific meaning. A declation of war is not the same as a war, it is not the same as a police action. Even though the modern fashion is to go to war without a formal declaration or war (World War 2 is the last declared war the US fought...) formal declarations are still important, and merits an article of its own. -- Geo Swan 04:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the Merge tag. Obvious reasons: police action is defined as entering war without declaring war!!! Same goes for authorized use of force. That it is too short is not an argument; it must be enlarged. However, maybe we could consider merging those two articles together? Lapaz 09:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing war query
I am unconvinced that Netherlands and Portugal were at war from 1567, and can find nothing on the referenced 1567 page; war between Netherlands and Spain commenced the following year, and does not appear to have involved Portugal. Please convince me! Moreover, the Netherlands have actually signed a peace treaty with Portugal after 1567 - a peace in 1661/2 brokered by Charles II, involving a lot of compensation paid to the Netherlands by Portugal, though this was at least in part to resolve the dispute regarding Portugal's reconquest of Brazil. Ron H-W

I believe that Israel and Lebanon/Syria have been in a state of war since 1948, not 1973 (looking for references to back that up) Nloth 04:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands did not exist back in 1567, unless there is a referance confirming the fact that these two countries are in a state of war, I will remove the sentence from the ongoing wars list. --TimBits 17:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have actually read something about an ongoing war between Portugal and the Netherlands which had begun in the 16th century. Not sure about where I read it, though.--MiguelFC 22:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Berwick upon Tweed
I have seen it alleged that Berwick upon Tweed is specifically mentioned in Britain's 1914 declaration of war against Germany but not in the peace treaties of 1918/9, This is similar to its inclusion in the 1853 declaration of the Crimean War and its omission from the 1856 peace treaty. Surely if inclusion in these treaties was not needed under the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, then inclusion in these declarations was redundant? Ron H-W

The story is untrue - see details in Berwick-upon-Tweed Nloth 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sept 14 2001 not a declaration of war
I removed a paragraph from the current declarations subsection that I consider misleading. It said that "strictly speaking" the September 14 2001 Congressional authorization was not a declaration of war. I think it is misleading and POV to imply it is. Possibly POV too. The Bush administration has argued that Bush can assume wartime powers. And the other two branches of the US government are challenging the constitutionality of his actions. -- Geo Swan 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"Feeling Bound"
"Not declaring war provides a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards against the executive declaring war, and also, in some cases, to avoid feeling bound by the established laws of war." Poorly written nonsense, original research, and POV. patsw 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Public-relations friendly"
"Not using the word 'war' is also seen as being more public relations-friendly." Poorly written nonsense, original research, and POV. patsw 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Non-war wars" -> "Undeclared wars"
The section title "Non-war wars" sounds very silly. It is actually referring to undeclare wars, which makes more sense given the article title. I'm making the change. Patiwat 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria
Bulgaria has NEVER declared war on Hungary or the USSR. There were some mistakes about Bulgarian involvement in WWII that I have just corrected. 88.80.130.106 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel <-> Lebanon
The article reads that "Israel has been at war with Lebanon and Syria since the Yom Kippur War", but Lebanon didn't participate in that war, so I'm removing Lebanon from that sentence.

210.118.133.65 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC) THE TITLE ; The UN and war DESCRIPTION OF 2ND PARAGRAPH North Korea invaded South Korea on 15 June 1950.

PLEASE CORRECT THE DATE FROM "15 JUNE 1950" TO "25 JUNE 1950".

yb3kim@hmd.co.kr

NPOV
Not everybody agrees with the claim that wars without declarations of war are constitutional. I edited the article to reflect a NPOV. Robocracy 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

UK war declaration to Finland
There seems to be a mistake, as UK has declared war twice to Finland, namely both 6th and 7th of December. Or maybe the British forgot on the 7th they already declared the war on the previous day?

Effects of a Declaration of War
I believe the effects of Declaring War should be added. These may include the countries becoming enemies, warriors gaining the right to kill enemy soldiers and destroy property, cancellation of treaties, cancellation of debts between the countries, cancellation of contracts, enemy aliens losing the right to sue, tradition of enemy aliens being given the a few days to leave, internment and/or expulsion of enemy aliens, bans on trade, withdraw of diplomats, activation of the Geneva Conventions + protocols, activation of the Hague Conventions, activation of the traditional laws of war, right to capture enemy ships and bans on passage of enemy ships. There may be other effects that I do not know about. Will an expert please supply details and citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Swallow (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Will an expert please add a list of the many effects of a Declaration of War. (Posted by User:Andrew Swallow to the article). —Random832 06:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph shows some of the legal effects of declaring war Prize_%28law%29 Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

category:euphemisms
Why is this page under "euphemisms"? I can't see how it is one. --MacRusgail 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A Useful Reference on this Topic
May I suggest that those who are at work on this page have a look at the very useful book by Brien Hallett, The Lost Art of Declaring War (1998, Uni. of Illinois Press)? Hallett challenges the view that declarations of war can only be formal (i.e. empty, without purpose) and claims that it is just that for various reasons Europeans and Americans have, since about the sixteenth century, tended to forget what they were once for. He cites practices of declaring war going back to the ancient Greeks and the Jews of the Old Testament, which examples could provide a useful addition to the 'background' section (which as I write doesn't reach back before the Renaissance). Hallett traces the process of forgetting in theory and practice and discusses a number of functions -- military, political, diplomatic and moral -- that *reasoned* declarations of war (like the Declaration of Indpendence in the USA) have fulfilled in the past, and might yet fulfil.-- M. H. d. Ä. 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.10.4 (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2008(UTC)

POV
This article is suffering from some major POV issues and, by extension, citation issues:

"How Not To Declare War" - Section needs a better title, and citations (it has none)

"Power of the purse"

-"The problem, of course, is that a budget debate and appropriation is an exercise of the "power of the purse," and not an exercise of the power to declare war formally and perfectly." - Sentence is POV, no citation

"An 'Authorization to Use Armed Forces' Resolution"

-"In the United States, and in Britain since 19 March 2003, a different speech act is used to accomplish the same imperfect objective. After the president or prime minister has decided to engage in a military action, he requests a resolution from the Congress or Parliament 'authorizing the use of the Armed Forces.' Once approved, as it always is, the mission goes forward." - The POV / citation issues with this sentence speak are self-evident.

POV Dispute
1. "How Not To Declare War" - Section needs a better title, and citations (it has none)

Agreed. Citations added.

2. "Power of the Purse" is a standard term in British and American constitutional discussions. See the Wikipedia entry for more information.

3. "The problem, of course, is that a budget debate and appropriation is an exercise of the "power of the purse," and not an exercise of the power to declare war formally and perfectly." - Sentence is POV, no citation

No point of view is expressed in this statement nor is a citation possible because the statement simply draws a logical conclusion from the terms used. If a legislature passes an appropriations bill funding a military operation, that appropriations bill (i.e., that exercise of the legislature's "power of the purse") CAN be considered as functionally equivalent to a formal declaration of war, but it CANNOT be considered as a formal declaration of war. In order to be formal and perfect, a declaration must use the word "declared" or another form of the verb.

Basically, the sentence makes the logical point that an apple is not an orange. --BwoRen (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An appropriations bill is not a declaration of war. It may be something naughty like authorisation to fight without declaring war; sometimes called a sneak attack. Declarations of war are covered by the Hague Convention III in 1907. Congress, the Supreme Court and the State Department are meant to follow the rules in that Convention. To be legal the declaration has to be delivered to the government of the people you will be trying to kill. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've reverted this article to the rewrite I undertook at the beginning of May 08 - I don't want to start a revert war so if it's changed again I won't revert the article back without further discussion. I think there is scope for further discussions and expansion of the article, but I think the previous version was overly linguistic in its focus: it did not consider holistically enough the aspects of how war is declared. Furthermore, it largely presented academic theory as fact. --Pretty Green (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Most fateful declaration of war
Should mention the declaration of war which has probably had the most influence on world history -- Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, in Dec. 1941. He wasn't strictly required to do this by the Axis treaty, and if he hadn't declared war on the U.S., then the history of WW2 might have been rather different (i.e. two separate and somewhat disconnected wars in Europe and the Pacific)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Denigration of Formal Declarations of War
This section hardly seems to take a neutral point of view: "Many times, such as the US Invasion of Haiti in 1993, decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that did not declare UN or its members at war. This has been seen also as a subterfuge to allow the United States to dispense with the international laws of war, for example by declaring hostages as criminals rather than as prisoners of war (e.g., Manuel Noriega[14])."

There hasn't been a formal declaration of war anywhere in the world since 1945, to my knowledge, so why the United States should be singled out for special approbrium is anybody's guess. Noisms (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Does a Declaration of Jihad count as a Declaration of War
Can only nations declare war or can trans-national organisations like NATO and Al Qaeda? Does a Declaration of Jihad count? Taking into account 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and the major military action the USA has taken since. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is about nations, as in the government of nations, declaring war. Jihad is not a nation, it is a notion. (Give me a "ha-ha" for the pun.) Quoting UBL's "fatwa" does not tell the reader anything about how a jihad becomes or is a declaration of war by a nation or national government.  Andrew, who restored the material, said Afghanistan is a nation (true) and that NATO can fight wars.  But we do not have any info about Afghanistan declaring a war or NATO declaring a war.  Unless this section can be cleaned up to make an intelligent tie-in between the article topic and Jihad, I am going to delete.--S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The other problems with the Jihad section are WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. Let's delete this and leave Andrew's speculations to be worked out in other articles. --S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to go ahead and add my vote for delete. Just a useless and incoherent section, in addition to WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.86.179 (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1429
Jhesus-Maria, King of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the Kingdom of France, you, Guillaume de la Poule, count of Suffort, Jean, sire of Talbot, and you, Thomas, sire of Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, acknowledge the summons of the King of Heaven. Render to the Maid here sent by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns which you have taken and violated in France. She is here come by God’s will to reclaim the blood royal. She is very ready to make peace, if you will acknowledge her to be right, provided that France you render, and pay for having held it. And you, archers, companions of war, men-at-arms and others who are before the town of Orleans, go away into your own country, by God. And if so be not done, expect news of the Maid who will come to see you shortly, to your very great injury. King of England, if you do not so, I am chief-in-war and in whatever place I attain your people in France, I will make them quit it willy-nilly. And if they will not obey, I will have them all slain; I am here sent by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of all France … (Written this Tuesday of Holy Week, March 22, 1429.)

Joan of Arc, the Maid of Orleans, sends a formal letter of summons to the English upon the siege of Orleans. (Kenneth Anderson posts this once a year on this date at all the places he blogs.) —reposted by Pawyilee (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

1996
—Pawyilee (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Who declared the Falklands War?
The table shows Argentina declaring the entire South Atlantic a war zone on 11 May 1982. Other possibilities from the same referenced article are 3 April the UN Security Council passes Resolution 502 and 7 April the British Government says it intends to impose a 200-mile exclusion zone around the islands on April 26. Which ever one is chosen, the fighting started before the declaration.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no formal declaration of war made by either side. In fact, the British Government tried to avoid the use of the word 'war' in all their dealings during the conflict.  They saw it as claiming back sovereign territory that had been illegally invaded by Argentina.  The Argentine invasion was not preceeded by a declaration by the Argentine Military Junta.DarkLight753 (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

On India
As India did not get independence till 1947, "India" could not unilaterally join the war in 1939. Did Indian political opinion in 1939 matter to the viceroy of secretary of state for India, when they made India co-belligerents against the Axis? It didn't. What mattered were Indian materiel and men, who gave their lives unnecessarily, to save an empire that gave subjecthood, and not citizenship to them. Thus, "British India" tag is valid. Also Azad Hind / INA soldiers were "traitors" according to whom? You, perhaps? They were fighting for the freedom of their country, however wise of otherwise they were in their choice of military or political allies. Wikipedia should not reflect court history, or merely the history of the winning side. Regards, Patoldanga'r Tenida (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * They were fighting the legitimate government of India. 'Freedom fighters' just makes them self admitted traitors. Treason is only forgiven if you win. Those rebels lost. Andrew Swallow (talk)   15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. While the legal status of the Raj as the arbiter of political power is fait accompli, it did not take into account the wishes of the people on whom it granted subjecthood. It was "legitimate", if you must call it so, by sheer brute force. Thus claiming representation on the behalf of colonized subalterns is highly suspect. Had it been "legitimate" in the eyes of the Indians, they would not have fought to remove it -- by non violence or otherwise. The Provisional Government of Azad Hind admittedly was recognized only by the Axis, but it enjoyed every shred of legitimacy in the eyes of the Indian population in South East Asia. A corollary is that of the Free French or the Czechoslovak government in exile -- which fate ordained to be on the eventual winning side. By your logic, that "Treason is only forgiven if you win". True, the INA lost. But the British did not win either. They had to leave India two years after the war ended, in 1947. And whose "treason" was it anyway? Men (and women) who sought a free nation, against an oppressive system of colonialism? You call that treason? By your logic, George Washington was also a traitor. Patoldanga&#39;r Tenida (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * George Washington was fully aware that he was a traitor. He knew what fate was waiting for him if he lost.  "Hang together or we will hang apart" was both true and a joke. :Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth realms
Declarations of War may be made by the Crown but as said in the article they are issued by the parliaments and prime ministers of the country. Andrew Swallow (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Any references? Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Canada even has its own Wiki page Declaration of war by Canada Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Declared wars since 1945
In the article there is a table with declared wars since 1945. In the same list there are some marked "existence of war" instead of declared wars. I seems to me that if one includes wars that existed after 1945, without a declaration of war, then a very long list of wars should be included, or else the list should be shortened to only include wars that were declared. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tha table was made by Z.graber. I have asked him on his talk page. His last contribution was May 2013, so I expect no answer now. Therefore, I intend to trim the list to contain only formally declared wars after 1945. I will give it a little time first to see if anyone objects. Star Lord -  星王 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
As so far as I can find there exists no source other than the one provided (source 26) that mentions a 'declaration of war' by Iraq against Iran. The source itself does not name or paraphrase any government documents and states the existence of this 'declaration of war' in bare terms, with minimal detail, and this statement may have been assumed or used for literary effect. Regardless, there exists no other source that I can find proving this 'declaration of war' ever happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.141.234 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Other sources clearly state that their was no declaration of war, each belligerent accusing the other one of starting the fights. "Open warfare began on Sept. 22, 1980, when Iraqi armed forces invaded western Iran along the countries’ joint border, though Iraq claimed that the war had begun earlier that month, on September 4, when Iran shelled a number of border posts. " https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War

The claims of a war declaration in Chad-Sudan war (the source provided is about "state of war") and Ogaden war (no source) are also unsustained. Evargalo (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Declaration of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081031144656/http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/FINAL%20ET%20JAB.pdf to http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/FINAL%20ET%20JAB.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Declaration of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030407232423/http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en to http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Declaration of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031144656/http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/FINAL%20ET%20JAB.pdf to http://www.pca-cpa.org/upload/files/FINAL%20ET%20JAB.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112212535/http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1151 to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1151
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416225727/http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/details.html?rsnpid=208992 to http://news.sudanvisiondaily.com/details.html?rsnpid=208992
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421122334/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102174734/http://fas.org/man/crs/RS21323.pdf to https://fas.org/man/crs/RS21323.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Declaration of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009095550/http://www.frompeacetojustice.nl/eCache/DEF/6/297.html to http://www.frompeacetojustice.nl/eCache/DEF/6/297.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)