The use of force, currently controlled by international law, is outdated and changes must be made. Force within the international community has been presented as decentralized. Force was used in different ways and for different purposes in order to achieve desired goals. Violence was accepted and used to resolve disputes between states because states could wage war without the consent of any other state, although this could result in many tragic consequences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Nevertheless, "just and unjust war" arose where, in ancient Rome and Fetials, the fetial law (ius fetiale), also known as religious law was enforced by a group of priests responsible for maintaining the peace. This group of priests has authority over the process of creating, enforcing, and interpreting treaties and regulations on the declaration of war.[1] Since then, the concept of "unjust war" has changed and was further influenced by ST. Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas and there were three conditions under which a war could be "just" were stated in Summa Theologica:[2]: 1. It must be waged by a competent authority, prohibited from waging a private war . 2. It must be carried out for a just and good purpose, such as restoring good or punishing a bad deed. 3. It must be carried out with the right intention, such as the ultimate restoration of peace. This doctrine began to evolve with the rise of independent states in Europe. As the number of sovereign states increases, wars are no longer defined as a matter of subjective moral judgment but as a legal state of affairs. Since then, states were no longer able to judge other states whether they used force justly or unjustly. This system was supported by positivism and the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and survived in Europe until the beginning of the 20th century. The consequences of this belief led to the outbreak of World War I.[3] Following the First World War, international relations were rebuilt between States thanks to the creation of the League of Notions (LON). The LON was established in 1919 and played a role in ensuring that acts of aggression would not occur in the future. Article 12 stipulated that League members were not permitted to wage war until three months after the judgment and must resort to judicial settlement, arbitration, or intervention by the League Council. However, aggressive states reportedly felt that these obligations were too onerous and could simply withdraw from the league and not wait three months after the award was judged. This would be unfair to the victim state. At the end of the decade, in 1928, France and the United States initiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact. This pact aspired to a total ban on war and quickly became popular, also attracting numerous instrument ratifications. Ultimately, it was unable to prevent wars in that era, but it nevertheless provided one of the legal bases for holding high-ranking Nazis accountable for crimes against peace in the country. The Nuremberg proceedings after World War II vindicated peace.[4] During World War II, governments believed that the use of force should be prohibited, with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin Roosevelt emphasizing that states should abandon the use of force. According to the United Nations website: Emanating from the two great democratic leaders of the time and involving.[8]