Since 1823 the United States has declared seven doctrines in which principles for the use of force have been outlined. These principles were considered by the US Government as binding concepts for the use of force in its international relations and were subsequently labelled ‘doctrines’.

Moreover, the label ‘doctrine’ is used for several political declarations and principles of US security policy. These so-called ‘doctrines’ either contain no principles for the use of force, like the so-called Ford Doctrine, or have not been considered by the US Government as ‘doctrine’, like the so-called Johnson, Carter or Clinton doctrines. However, these half-and pseudo-doctrines, and the statements by scholars of international law in relation to them, reveal information about the characteristics of doctrines.

Consistency of doctrines with the respective international law in force

The degree to which the principles for the use of force contained in specific doctrines are consistent with the respective international law in force is evaluated differently by scholars.

The subjectivity of the evaluation of doctrines under international law

The consistency of the principles for the use of force as explained in doctrines with the respective international law in force is evaluated differently depending on two factors: on the one hand, these different evaluations result from the differing contents attributed to doctrines; on the other hand, from different opinions with regard to the legality of the use of force.

Differences in evaluation due to a differing understanding of the content of doctrines

Often a differing evaluation of doctrines under international law results from a different understanding of the content attributed to a doctrine and not from a different interpretation of the respective ius ad bellum in force.