The use of force that is controlled by international law at this time is obsolete and changes must be made. The force in the international community has been described as decentralized. Force was used in different ways and purposes to achieve desired goals. Violence was accepted and used to resolve disputes between states, as states could wage war without the consent of other states, even though this could cause many tragic consequences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, “just and unjust war” arose where in ancient Rome and Fetials, fetial law (ius fetiale), also known as religious law was executed by a group of priests responsible for maintaining the peace. This group of priests has authority over the process of creating, applying, and interpreting war declaration treaties and regulations.[1] Since then the concept of “unjust war” has changed and has been further influenced by ST. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and in the Summa Theologica stated three conditions under which a war could be “just”:[2] 1. It should be conducted by a competent authority, prohibiting waging a private war. 2. It should be undertaken for a just and good purpose, such as restoring an asset or punishing a wrong action. 3. It should be undertaken with the right intention, for example, the permanent restoration of peace. This doctrine began to evolve along with the birth of independent states in Europe. As the number of sovereign states grows, wars are no longer defined as a matter of subjective moral judgment but as a legal state of affairs. Since then, states have not been in a position to judge any other state whether it has resorted to 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 had led to the outbreak of the First World War.[3] After World War I, international relations were rebuilt between states through the establishment of the League of Notions (LON). The LON was created in 1919 and played an important role in ensuring that acts of aggression never occurred again in the future. Article 12 stated that league members could not go to war until three months after the award ruling and must first resort to a judicial solution, arbitration or involvement of the League Council. However, aggressive states would find these obligations too onerous and could simply withdraw from the league and not wait until three months after the award ruling. This would be unfair to the victim state. By the end of the decade, in 1928, France and the United States promoted the Kellogg-Briand Pact treaty. This pact aspired to a total ban on war and quickly became popular even attracting many ratifications of instruments, ultimately it could not prevent wars at the time but still provided one of the legal bases for holding high-ranking Nazis accountable for crimes against peace in The Nuremberg Proceedings after World War II claimed peace.[4] During World War II, governments believed that the use of force should be outlawed as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt stressed that states should abandon the use of force. According to the UN website: Coming from the two great democratic leaders of the time and implying the full moral support of States.[8]