it may be defined but applying all the elements to real situations is not at all trivial and I don’t think most people are painstakingly going through all the elements of the legal definition when they decide to use the word.

yeah he actually posted that the bombings will continue as long as is necessary for peace in the middle east and the world…

I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

It is true that law and ethics are distinct (I did not argue otherwise), but they do overlap. Laws often reflect ethical principles even if they’re not identical. Ethics isn’t just about calculating harm and benefit; different theories (like deontology or virtue ethics) focus on duties or character rather than consequences. So while wearing a hijab probably wouldn’t be considered harmful in most ethical systems, that’s more a reflection of the framework than an absolute rule.

I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.

No I meant moral here. The context is that law codifies an ethical standard and I’m not necessarily arguing the standard should be different, just that someone may personally have a different one (which would be their personal ethical standard). Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.

No, the former (illegality) follows from the latter (lacking legal justification). There is no jus ad bellum under international law here.

I understand this isn’t necessarily hinged on just the legality but it is fair game under the laws of warfare even if the war is an illegal one.

One aspect of this is not that anyone is interested in some “war declaration ritual” but that it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.

That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.

Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.