In 1991 the new international order is threatened by one man, Saddam Hussain, who has deliberately broken the international rules by aggressing one of his Arab neighbours –Kuwait. A far-reaching decision is then taken : to declare war on Iraq. More than 10 years later, the situation in the Gulf region remains unsolved.
This observation raises a question : What was the use of a war in 1991 if the international order is still in jeopardy 10 years later Was the Gulf War a "just war" Then the concept of "just war" reappears suddenly. But the notion is far from being a new one. It pervades the western tradition on war from Saint Augustine to Grotius and later on the international law. This "doctrine" provides us with two useful elements : One the one hand, the concept of jus as bellum addresses the question of the justification of force ; On the other hand, the concept of jus in bellum concerns the restraints and limits on how force may be use. Thus are expressed the criteria to define whether or not a war is "just". We can justify the use of force thanks to the concepts of "just cause", last resort, right authority, and proportionality. First, what is a "just cause" In the tradition, for a just cause to exist, the purpose of the war must be done to redress in some way a wrong done by the enemy2.
More specifically in the XXe century, the International Law has gradually reduced the acceptable justification of war to one – Defence, which implies the notion of "second use of force" and that of aggression. But how is aggression recognised Article 1 : Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. Article 5 : No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for In the case of the Gulf War, the Iraqi..