Monopoly On Violence In Vietnam

The monopoly on violence is the idea that the state is the only actor that can use violence legitimately. The purpose of the use of force in the modern state “is the protection of its citizens or, in modern terms, the guarantee of their security by establishing the rule of law” (Wulf 7). Furthermore, this relationship of state and the people are used to ensure social order, yet the ability to use force does not ensure enduring social order simply subordination. The monopoly on violence establishes credible justification to allow for the legitimate use of violence ensuring lasting social order. It is based on the belief in the validity of the legal statute and the appropriate juridical competence (7). However, for this credibility of the monopoly on violence to last the state must abide by

The War in Vietnam is often seen as an illegitimate war and caused a great deal of conflict in the 1960s. For one, the Vietnam War was seen as unconstitutional as under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution no president can initiate war without going through Congress. This, of course, did not happen with the Vietnam War. However, it is argued that this unconstitutional act can be justified if similar past president actions have previously gone unchallenged (Lobel 796). In the case of the Vietnam War, this rationale was correct. Nevertheless, the US involvement in the Vietnam War violated the UN Charter as the US government did not inform the Security Council, they violated Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter reasoning that the US involvement in the Vietnam War was illegitimate. Article 2 Paragraph 4 states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”