English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The 20-year Afghanistan conflict was called a ‘forever war’ but another significant use of military force has lasted much longer. Since 1986, US presidents have authorised air attacks beyond armed conflict zones. President Biden continued the practice beginning with a strike on Syria and later on Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan, where a drone cost the lives of seven children. US air wars are explained more by a policy of deterrence, than the lawful purpose of self-defence as permitted under international law. UN Charter Article 51 restricts force to when an armed attack occurs. The general principles of necessity, proportionality, and attribution provide further restrictions. The US has tried for 35-years to alter this law in line with deterrence policy but doing so is difficult under the doctrine of positive law. It is impossible under the doctrine of  jus cogens  that includes the prohibition on force and the exception for self-defence.

Forever air wars and the lawful purpose of self-defence