Jason Ralph
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199214310
- eISBN:
- 9780191706615
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199214310.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This book is among the first to address the issues raised by the International Criminal Court from an International Relations perspective. By clearly outlining a theoretical framework to interpret ...
More
This book is among the first to address the issues raised by the International Criminal Court from an International Relations perspective. By clearly outlining a theoretical framework to interpret these issues, it makes a significant contribution to the English School's study of international society. More specifically, it offers a concise definition of ‘world society’ and thus helps to resolve a longstanding problem in international theory. This groundbreaking conceptual work is supported by an indepth empirical analysis of American opposition to the ICC. The book goes beyond the familiar arguments related to national interests and argues that the Court has exposed the extent to which American notions of accountability are tied to the nation‐state. Where other democracies are willing to renegotiate their social contract because they see themselves as part of world society, the US protects its particular contract with ‘the American people’ because it offers a means of distinguishing that nation and its democracy from the rest of the world. In opposing the ICC, therefore, the US seeks to defend a society of states because this kind of society can accommodate American exceptionalism and advance particular US interests. This ‘sovereigntist’, or more accurately ‘Americanist’, influence is further illustrated in chapters on the customary international law, universal jurisdiction, transatlantic relations and US policy on international humanitarian law in the war on terror. The book concludes by evoking E.H. Carr's criticism of those great powers who claim that a harmony exists between their particular interests and those of wider society. It also recalls his argument that great powers sometimes need to compromise and in this context it argues that support for the ICC is a more effective means of fulfilling America's purpose and a less costly sacrifice for the US to make than that demanded by the ‘Americanist’ policy of nation‐building.Less
This book is among the first to address the issues raised by the International Criminal Court from an International Relations perspective. By clearly outlining a theoretical framework to interpret these issues, it makes a significant contribution to the English School's study of international society. More specifically, it offers a concise definition of ‘world society’ and thus helps to resolve a longstanding problem in international theory. This groundbreaking conceptual work is supported by an indepth empirical analysis of American opposition to the ICC. The book goes beyond the familiar arguments related to national interests and argues that the Court has exposed the extent to which American notions of accountability are tied to the nation‐state. Where other democracies are willing to renegotiate their social contract because they see themselves as part of world society, the US protects its particular contract with ‘the American people’ because it offers a means of distinguishing that nation and its democracy from the rest of the world. In opposing the ICC, therefore, the US seeks to defend a society of states because this kind of society can accommodate American exceptionalism and advance particular US interests. This ‘sovereigntist’, or more accurately ‘Americanist’, influence is further illustrated in chapters on the customary international law, universal jurisdiction, transatlantic relations and US policy on international humanitarian law in the war on terror. The book concludes by evoking E.H. Carr's criticism of those great powers who claim that a harmony exists between their particular interests and those of wider society. It also recalls his argument that great powers sometimes need to compromise and in this context it argues that support for the ICC is a more effective means of fulfilling America's purpose and a less costly sacrifice for the US to make than that demanded by the ‘Americanist’ policy of nation‐building.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This short introduction describes the approach taken by the book and gives a brief outline of its contents. The story is about wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them, and the ...
More
This short introduction describes the approach taken by the book and gives a brief outline of its contents. The story is about wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them, and the search for these ideas is carried out in the domain of the laws of war by addressing the challenge posed by a particular principle in these laws: the distinction between combatant and non-combatant, a concept which has been recognized as the fundamental principle upon which the entire notion of ‘humanity in warfare’ rests (and has also been acknowledged as the most fragile). The forces underpinning this distinction (more precisely, a distinction between the lawful and unlawful combatant) are explored by presenting three ideologies, each representing a distinct political tradition of war, and each rooted in incommensurable conceptions of the good life; the overall argument of the book is that this incommensurability lay at the source of the failure fully to resolve the problem of distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants between 1874 and 1949. The book makes use of concepts and methods borrowed from a range of intellectual disciplines: political thought, history, and the ‘classical’ traditions of international theory. In the case of the latter, it examines the influence of key thinkers on war, such as Machiavelli, Grotius, and Rousseau, but differs from this orthodox approach in two ways: first, it is not seeking to ascertain the ‘true’ meaning of their philosophies, but rather to find how their political thoughts were interpreted and shaped by later generations; second, the examination is not restricted to abstract theorists and philosophers but is centrally concerned with paradigms constructed by practitioners of war, both professional and civilian.Less
This short introduction describes the approach taken by the book and gives a brief outline of its contents. The story is about wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them, and the search for these ideas is carried out in the domain of the laws of war by addressing the challenge posed by a particular principle in these laws: the distinction between combatant and non-combatant, a concept which has been recognized as the fundamental principle upon which the entire notion of ‘humanity in warfare’ rests (and has also been acknowledged as the most fragile). The forces underpinning this distinction (more precisely, a distinction between the lawful and unlawful combatant) are explored by presenting three ideologies, each representing a distinct political tradition of war, and each rooted in incommensurable conceptions of the good life; the overall argument of the book is that this incommensurability lay at the source of the failure fully to resolve the problem of distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants between 1874 and 1949. The book makes use of concepts and methods borrowed from a range of intellectual disciplines: political thought, history, and the ‘classical’ traditions of international theory. In the case of the latter, it examines the influence of key thinkers on war, such as Machiavelli, Grotius, and Rousseau, but differs from this orthodox approach in two ways: first, it is not seeking to ascertain the ‘true’ meaning of their philosophies, but rather to find how their political thoughts were interpreted and shaped by later generations; second, the examination is not restricted to abstract theorists and philosophers but is centrally concerned with paradigms constructed by practitioners of war, both professional and civilian.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This is the second of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the Groatian tradition, which is viewed as the most dominant and powerful of the traditions presented, and had as ...
More
This is the second of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the Groatian tradition, which is viewed as the most dominant and powerful of the traditions presented, and had as its primary source the Dutch diplomat, lawyer, poet, mathematician, theologian, and historian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). The objective of the chapter is to analyse this ideology, and show how its principles came to underpin the later Grotian rationale for the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The chapter begins by evoking the inherently enigmatic qualities of Grotius and the numerous (and often conflicting) traditions that he inspired; next the distinct properties of the Grotian tradition of war are set out and seen to consist of a singular legal discourse, a pluralist method, and a strong attachment to order and power. The core components of this ideology are then examined with reference to Grotian conceptions of human nature, government, and liberty; these elements are shown to provide the necessary foundations of Grotius’ conception of war, and in particular to inform the priority accorded to the rights of states and armies over those of civilian populations. The final section of the chapter examines how this ideology informed the practices and beliefs of the founders of the modern laws of war; these ideological changes highlight the adaptability of this tradition as it developed at the end of the nineteenth century, and defined the dominant paradigm of the laws of war.Less
This is the second of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the Groatian tradition, which is viewed as the most dominant and powerful of the traditions presented, and had as its primary source the Dutch diplomat, lawyer, poet, mathematician, theologian, and historian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). The objective of the chapter is to analyse this ideology, and show how its principles came to underpin the later Grotian rationale for the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. The chapter begins by evoking the inherently enigmatic qualities of Grotius and the numerous (and often conflicting) traditions that he inspired; next the distinct properties of the Grotian tradition of war are set out and seen to consist of a singular legal discourse, a pluralist method, and a strong attachment to order and power. The core components of this ideology are then examined with reference to Grotian conceptions of human nature, government, and liberty; these elements are shown to provide the necessary foundations of Grotius’ conception of war, and in particular to inform the priority accorded to the rights of states and armies over those of civilian populations. The final section of the chapter examines how this ideology informed the practices and beliefs of the founders of the modern laws of war; these ideological changes highlight the adaptability of this tradition as it developed at the end of the nineteenth century, and defined the dominant paradigm of the laws of war.
Ian Clark
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- May 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199297009
- eISBN:
- 9780191711428
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297009.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Unlike the other cases, the two conferences held at The Hague are not normally identified with a single normative principle. Nonetheless, the meetings were characterized by a great emphasis upon ...
More
Unlike the other cases, the two conferences held at The Hague are not normally identified with a single normative principle. Nonetheless, the meetings were characterized by a great emphasis upon humanitarian concerns, and also upon the need for the acts of state representatives to be endorsed by a wider public. This was best captured by the language of the ‘public conscience’ employed during the conference and embodied in the famous Martens clause. The first conference was held in response to the Imperial Rescript of Tsar Nicholas II, and the subject matter covered disarmament, the laws of war, and international arbitration. The meetings were the subject of major attention from a variety of popular pressure groups, much of it orchestrated by the international peace movement, and publicists such as W. T. Stead. The long term significance, however, lay in the idea that there was a wider public constituency to which international legitimacy principles had to appeal.Less
Unlike the other cases, the two conferences held at The Hague are not normally identified with a single normative principle. Nonetheless, the meetings were characterized by a great emphasis upon humanitarian concerns, and also upon the need for the acts of state representatives to be endorsed by a wider public. This was best captured by the language of the ‘public conscience’ employed during the conference and embodied in the famous Martens clause. The first conference was held in response to the Imperial Rescript of Tsar Nicholas II, and the subject matter covered disarmament, the laws of war, and international arbitration. The meetings were the subject of major attention from a variety of popular pressure groups, much of it orchestrated by the international peace movement, and publicists such as W. T. Stead. The long term significance, however, lay in the idea that there was a wider public constituency to which international legitimacy principles had to appeal.
Jason Ralph
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199214310
- eISBN:
- 9780191706615
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199214310.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
The evidence presented in previous chapters contributes to the general argument that the US defends the idea of a society of states because it is in the kind of society that America can preserve a ...
More
The evidence presented in previous chapters contributes to the general argument that the US defends the idea of a society of states because it is in the kind of society that America can preserve a preferred self‐image and can best advance its particular interests. This chapter develops that argument one stage further by focusing on the US response to the terrorist attacks of 9–11. From the perspective of the Bush administration, only those fighting on behalf of sovereign states could claim a right to lawful belligerency and the right to protection under the laws of war. Dealing with the terrorist threat through the norms of the society of states, therefore, provided additional normative criteria to delegitimize Al Qaeda and it put the issue of counter‐terrorism in a legal and political setting the US could, as the most powerful state, more or less dictate. The chapter provides historical context to this policy by focusing on the US rejection of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions and illustrates how US lawyers also used the concept of sovereignty in an attempt to escape the oversight of national as well as international courts.Less
The evidence presented in previous chapters contributes to the general argument that the US defends the idea of a society of states because it is in the kind of society that America can preserve a preferred self‐image and can best advance its particular interests. This chapter develops that argument one stage further by focusing on the US response to the terrorist attacks of 9–11. From the perspective of the Bush administration, only those fighting on behalf of sovereign states could claim a right to lawful belligerency and the right to protection under the laws of war. Dealing with the terrorist threat through the norms of the society of states, therefore, provided additional normative criteria to delegitimize Al Qaeda and it put the issue of counter‐terrorism in a legal and political setting the US could, as the most powerful state, more or less dictate. The chapter provides historical context to this policy by focusing on the US rejection of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions and illustrates how US lawyers also used the concept of sovereignty in an attempt to escape the oversight of national as well as international courts.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This is the third of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the republican tradition, which is represented partially through the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who, along ...
More
This is the third of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the republican tradition, which is represented partially through the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who, along with Pasquale Paoli and Tadeusz Kosciuszko, advanced a unified system of the republican good life and war in conjunction with the laws of war. The way in which this tradition developed in the nineteenth century is depicted. The different sections of the chapter are: The Republican Tradition of War; Republicanism; The Three Founders [Rousseau, Paoli and Kosciuszko]; Rousseau’s Republican War; Rousseau, Paoli and Kosciuszko; The Nature of Man and the State of Nature: Rousseau contra Hobbes and Grotius; The Nature of War; Liberty; Government, Society, and the Republic; Republic; Patriotism and Nationalism; Republican Nationalism; Republican Founders of the Tradition of War: Paoli and Kosciuszko; The Republican Tradition in the Nineteenth Century; The Nineteenth-Century Republican Tradition of War; and The Development of the Republican Tradition of War.Less
This is the third of three chapters on the three traditions of war, and introduces the republican tradition, which is represented partially through the writings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, who, along with Pasquale Paoli and Tadeusz Kosciuszko, advanced a unified system of the republican good life and war in conjunction with the laws of war. The way in which this tradition developed in the nineteenth century is depicted. The different sections of the chapter are: The Republican Tradition of War; Republicanism; The Three Founders [Rousseau, Paoli and Kosciuszko]; Rousseau’s Republican War; Rousseau, Paoli and Kosciuszko; The Nature of Man and the State of Nature: Rousseau contra Hobbes and Grotius; The Nature of War; Liberty; Government, Society, and the Republic; Republic; Patriotism and Nationalism; Republican Nationalism; Republican Founders of the Tradition of War: Paoli and Kosciuszko; The Republican Tradition in the Nineteenth Century; The Nineteenth-Century Republican Tradition of War; and The Development of the Republican Tradition of War.
Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts (eds)
- Published in print:
- 1992
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198277712
- eISBN:
- 9780191598890
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198277717.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), ‘the miracle of Holland’, was famous as a child prodigy, theologian, historian, poet, jurist, Dutch political figure, escaped political prisoner, and finally as Sweden's ...
More
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), ‘the miracle of Holland’, was famous as a child prodigy, theologian, historian, poet, jurist, Dutch political figure, escaped political prisoner, and finally as Sweden's ambassador to France. He is especially known for his major books on international law and practice, Mare Liberum (1609) and De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625).This book critically reappraises his contributions both to international law (called ‘the law of nations’ in his day) and to international relations. His contributions are examined in relation to his predecessors and in the context of the wars and controversies of his time. This book also assesses the strengths and weaknesses of what is often called a ‘Grotian tradition’ of thought about international law and relations—one which accepts the sovereignty of states, but at the same time stresses the existence of shared values and the necessity of rules.This collection illuminates enduring problems of international relations: the nature of international society and its institutions, the equality of states, the role of natural law, the lawfulness of war (jus ad bellum), the means of pursuing war (jus in bello), collective security, military intervention, the rights of the individual, and the law of the sea.While first and foremost a study in the field of international relations, this is also a significant contribution to the history and theory of international law; and to the history of the early seventeenth century, when the Dutch Republic, and the European states system generally, were emerging in their modern forms, and when the Thirty Years War impressed on Grotius and others the need for restraint in war.Less
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), ‘the miracle of Holland’, was famous as a child prodigy, theologian, historian, poet, jurist, Dutch political figure, escaped political prisoner, and finally as Sweden's ambassador to France. He is especially known for his major books on international law and practice, Mare Liberum (1609) and De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625).
This book critically reappraises his contributions both to international law (called ‘the law of nations’ in his day) and to international relations. His contributions are examined in relation to his predecessors and in the context of the wars and controversies of his time. This book also assesses the strengths and weaknesses of what is often called a ‘Grotian tradition’ of thought about international law and relations—one which accepts the sovereignty of states, but at the same time stresses the existence of shared values and the necessity of rules.
This collection illuminates enduring problems of international relations: the nature of international society and its institutions, the equality of states, the role of natural law, the lawfulness of war (jus ad bellum), the means of pursuing war (jus in bello), collective security, military intervention, the rights of the individual, and the law of the sea.
While first and foremost a study in the field of international relations, this is also a significant contribution to the history and theory of international law; and to the history of the early seventeenth century, when the Dutch Republic, and the European states system generally, were emerging in their modern forms, and when the Thirty Years War impressed on Grotius and others the need for restraint in war.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This book examines wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them. The search for these ideas is conducted in the domain of the laws of war, a body of rules that sought to regulate the ...
More
This book examines wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them. The search for these ideas is conducted in the domain of the laws of war, a body of rules that sought to regulate the practices of war and those permitted to fight in it. This work introduces three ideologies: the martial, Grotian, and republican. These traditions were rooted in incommensurable conceptions of the good life, and the overall argument is that their differences lay at the heart of the failure fully to resolve the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants at successive diplomatic conferences of Brussels in 1874, the Hague in 1899 and 1907, and Geneva in 1949. Based on a wide range of sources and a plurality of intellectual disciplines, the book places these diplomatic failures in their broader social and political contexts. By bringing out ideological continuities and drawing on the social history of army occupation in Europe and resistance to it, the book both challenges and illuminates the understanding of modern war.Less
This book examines wars and military occupation, and the ideas underlying them. The search for these ideas is conducted in the domain of the laws of war, a body of rules that sought to regulate the practices of war and those permitted to fight in it. This work introduces three ideologies: the martial, Grotian, and republican. These traditions were rooted in incommensurable conceptions of the good life, and the overall argument is that their differences lay at the heart of the failure fully to resolve the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants at successive diplomatic conferences of Brussels in 1874, the Hague in 1899 and 1907, and Geneva in 1949. Based on a wide range of sources and a plurality of intellectual disciplines, the book places these diplomatic failures in their broader social and political contexts. By bringing out ideological continuities and drawing on the social history of army occupation in Europe and resistance to it, the book both challenges and illuminates the understanding of modern war.
Geoffrey Blest
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198206996
- eISBN:
- 9780191677427
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206996.003.0009
- Subject:
- History, Military History
This chapter discusses the laws of war defining pertinent rules and rights of the participants in the armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare. It notes that the laws of war do not ...
More
This chapter discusses the laws of war defining pertinent rules and rights of the participants in the armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare. It notes that the laws of war do not recognize in belligerents an unlimited power in the adoption of means of injuring the enemy. It also discusses the endeavour to distinguish combatants from civilians and improve the latter's chances of protection in wartime as embodied in the current Protocol's permissions and prohibitions. It provides interpretations on the Protocols attached to the 1981 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, citing prohibitions on the use of incendiary weapons, napalm not being specifically mentioned; prohibition on the use of any weapon, ‘the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays’; and prohibitions on the use of land mines, booby traps and other devices.Less
This chapter discusses the laws of war defining pertinent rules and rights of the participants in the armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare. It notes that the laws of war do not recognize in belligerents an unlimited power in the adoption of means of injuring the enemy. It also discusses the endeavour to distinguish combatants from civilians and improve the latter's chances of protection in wartime as embodied in the current Protocol's permissions and prohibitions. It provides interpretations on the Protocols attached to the 1981 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, citing prohibitions on the use of incendiary weapons, napalm not being specifically mentioned; prohibition on the use of any weapon, ‘the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays’; and prohibitions on the use of land mines, booby traps and other devices.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This is the first of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: ...
More
This is the first of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: political and diplomatic (this chapter), social (Chapter 2) and intellectual (Chapter 3). The narrative begins by summarizing the diplomatic history of the conferences at Brussels in 1874, at the Hague in 1899 and 1907, and at Geneva in 1949. While the negotiations of the laws of war proved successful in many respects, they consistently failed to agree on a common legal understanding of a lawful combatant.Less
This is the first of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: political and diplomatic (this chapter), social (Chapter 2) and intellectual (Chapter 3). The narrative begins by summarizing the diplomatic history of the conferences at Brussels in 1874, at the Hague in 1899 and 1907, and at Geneva in 1949. While the negotiations of the laws of war proved successful in many respects, they consistently failed to agree on a common legal understanding of a lawful combatant.
Geoffrey Blest
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198206996
- eISBN:
- 9780191677427
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206996.003.0006
- Subject:
- History, Military History
This chapter discusses the contributions of the international Courts in relation to the clarification and development of the law of war with the possible exception of the Nuremberg Principles. It ...
More
This chapter discusses the contributions of the international Courts in relation to the clarification and development of the law of war with the possible exception of the Nuremberg Principles. It explains that the Nuremberg Principles originated in a Resolution of the General Assembly (Resolution 95, adopted on 11 November 1946). It notes that the resolution is reaffirmed in some fashion by the UN's International Law Commission in mid-1950. It clarifies that the GA's unanimous vote ‘indicated subscription by a large number of States to the substantive law of war crimes, including the principle of individual criminal responsibility, and to the lawful exercise of criminal jurisdiction over such individuals’. It emphasizes that in the International Military tribunals known to history as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, defendants were also tried for other alleged offences. It stresses the importance of determining the relationship of those other offences with the law of war.Less
This chapter discusses the contributions of the international Courts in relation to the clarification and development of the law of war with the possible exception of the Nuremberg Principles. It explains that the Nuremberg Principles originated in a Resolution of the General Assembly (Resolution 95, adopted on 11 November 1946). It notes that the resolution is reaffirmed in some fashion by the UN's International Law Commission in mid-1950. It clarifies that the GA's unanimous vote ‘indicated subscription by a large number of States to the substantive law of war crimes, including the principle of individual criminal responsibility, and to the lawful exercise of criminal jurisdiction over such individuals’. It emphasizes that in the International Military tribunals known to history as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, defendants were also tried for other alleged offences. It stresses the importance of determining the relationship of those other offences with the law of war.
Sir Adam Roberts
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199267217
- eISBN:
- 9780191601118
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199267219.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Demonstrates that the United Nations has been at the centre of key field operations and policy debates relating to humanitarian intervention since the end of the Cold War. However, the issue of ...
More
Demonstrates that the United Nations has been at the centre of key field operations and policy debates relating to humanitarian intervention since the end of the Cold War. However, the issue of humanitarian intervention also poses a challenge to the UN and its member states, and could even undermine the organization. At the heart of the UN’s difficulty is a delicate balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of states. For its first 45 years, the body was associated with the principle of non-intervention and the non-use of force, yet, since 1990, it has endorsed a series of interventions for humanitarian purposes. After considering the history and causes of this shift, the author discusses nine cases of intervention between 1990 and 2001. These cases reveal a number of issues and controversies, including reliance on the UN Security Council for authorization, the stance of the UN Secretary General, and the impact of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States.Less
Demonstrates that the United Nations has been at the centre of key field operations and policy debates relating to humanitarian intervention since the end of the Cold War. However, the issue of humanitarian intervention also poses a challenge to the UN and its member states, and could even undermine the organization. At the heart of the UN’s difficulty is a delicate balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of states. For its first 45 years, the body was associated with the principle of non-intervention and the non-use of force, yet, since 1990, it has endorsed a series of interventions for humanitarian purposes. After considering the history and causes of this shift, the author discusses nine cases of intervention between 1990 and 2001. These cases reveal a number of issues and controversies, including reliance on the UN Security Council for authorization, the stance of the UN Secretary General, and the impact of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States.
Jeff McMahan
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199548668
- eISBN:
- 9780191721045
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
Killing a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more ...
More
Killing a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more permissive in a state of war? This book argues that conditions in war make no difference to what morality permits and that the justifications for killing people are the same in war as they are in other contexts, such as individual self-defence. This view is radically at odds with the traditional theory of the just war and has implications that challenge common sense views. It implies, for example, that it is wrong to fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause, that those who fight in a just war are not legitimate targets of attack, and that some civilians may, in principle if not in practice, be morally liable to suffer certain harms in war.Less
Killing a person is in general among the most seriously wrongful forms of action, yet most of us accept that it can be permissible to kill people on a large scale in war. Does morality become more permissive in a state of war? This book argues that conditions in war make no difference to what morality permits and that the justifications for killing people are the same in war as they are in other contexts, such as individual self-defence. This view is radically at odds with the traditional theory of the just war and has implications that challenge common sense views. It implies, for example, that it is wrong to fight in a war that is unjust because it lacks a just cause, that those who fight in a just war are not legitimate targets of attack, and that some civilians may, in principle if not in practice, be morally liable to suffer certain harms in war.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This is the second of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: ...
More
This is the second of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: political and diplomatic (Chapter 1), social (this chapter) and intellectual (Chapter 3). It explores the social history of army occupation and resistance to it in nineteenth century Europe – from the Napoleonic period to the Franco-Prussian war– and places these diplomatic failures in their broader social and political context. In particular it examines the range of army practices under occupation, and the effect that they had on civilian life. The different sections of the chapter discuss: pillaging, looting, requisitions and billeting; reprisals; hostage-taking; types of civilian behaviour –obedience to the occupier, political and armed acts of resistance, organized acts of resistance –guerrillas and franc-tireurs; levee en masse and other assorted insurrections; ideologies of resistance; religion as a source of resistance; and the influence of nationalism and patriotism.Less
This is the second of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed: political and diplomatic (Chapter 1), social (this chapter) and intellectual (Chapter 3). It explores the social history of army occupation and resistance to it in nineteenth century Europe – from the Napoleonic period to the Franco-Prussian war– and places these diplomatic failures in their broader social and political context. In particular it examines the range of army practices under occupation, and the effect that they had on civilian life. The different sections of the chapter discuss: pillaging, looting, requisitions and billeting; reprisals; hostage-taking; types of civilian behaviour –obedience to the occupier, political and armed acts of resistance, organized acts of resistance –guerrillas and franc-tireurs; levee en masse and other assorted insurrections; ideologies of resistance; religion as a source of resistance; and the influence of nationalism and patriotism.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0004
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
This is the third of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed, and ...
More
This is the third of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed, and explores a range of intellectual approaches to the laws of war and war itself, assessing their relative methodological value and limitations. Previous chapters have illustrated that there existed at all levels a profound disagreement about the classes of people who were permitted to engage in political violence in times of war, and by narrowing the scope of inquiry to this one aspect (lawful versus unlawful combatants) of the laws of war, these chapters have also shown that there were strong normative elements to this lack of accord. Starting with this chapter, the remainder of the book argues that these normative elements were expressions of profound ideological clashes among three contending philosophies of war: martial, Grotian, and republican. From a methodological perspective, the explanation for the failed attempt to construct a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants will be seen to lie in incommensurable normative frameworks of war, rather than in the specialized analytical tools of legal theory, diplomatic and archival history, and international relations theory. This chapter first assesses both the intellectual contributions and limitations of the legal, historical and international relations approaches before defining the three distinct traditions of war (martial, Grotian, and republican), and highlighting their explanatory value.Less
This is the third of three chapters that set out the differing contexts through which the dilemma in the laws of war over the distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants can be viewed, and explores a range of intellectual approaches to the laws of war and war itself, assessing their relative methodological value and limitations. Previous chapters have illustrated that there existed at all levels a profound disagreement about the classes of people who were permitted to engage in political violence in times of war, and by narrowing the scope of inquiry to this one aspect (lawful versus unlawful combatants) of the laws of war, these chapters have also shown that there were strong normative elements to this lack of accord. Starting with this chapter, the remainder of the book argues that these normative elements were expressions of profound ideological clashes among three contending philosophies of war: martial, Grotian, and republican. From a methodological perspective, the explanation for the failed attempt to construct a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants will be seen to lie in incommensurable normative frameworks of war, rather than in the specialized analytical tools of legal theory, diplomatic and archival history, and international relations theory. This chapter first assesses both the intellectual contributions and limitations of the legal, historical and international relations approaches before defining the three distinct traditions of war (martial, Grotian, and republican), and highlighting their explanatory value.
Barbara Donagan
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199285181
- eISBN:
- 9780191713668
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285181.003.0009
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History
This chapter examines the laws of war in the 17th century. It argues that the English civil war represents a stage on the way to modern codified rules that regulate conduct in war. English practice ...
More
This chapter examines the laws of war in the 17th century. It argues that the English civil war represents a stage on the way to modern codified rules that regulate conduct in war. English practice in the 1640s, with its striking mixture of harshness and restraint, reflected a reality that later codifiers and theorists have continued to grapple with; the demands of ‘military necessity’ and of moral criteria have continued to coexist uneasily. The laws of God, nature, and nations; the laws of war; and the evolution of English articles of war are discussed.Less
This chapter examines the laws of war in the 17th century. It argues that the English civil war represents a stage on the way to modern codified rules that regulate conduct in war. English practice in the 1640s, with its striking mixture of harshness and restraint, reflected a reality that later codifiers and theorists have continued to grapple with; the demands of ‘military necessity’ and of moral criteria have continued to coexist uneasily. The laws of God, nature, and nations; the laws of war; and the evolution of English articles of war are discussed.
Geoffrey Blest
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198206996
- eISBN:
- 9780191677427
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206996.003.0007
- Subject:
- History, Military History
This section offers some explanations of the arrangements for the legal restraint of warfare which have not worked well. It explains that the arrangements made between 1945 and 1950 have had to ...
More
This section offers some explanations of the arrangements for the legal restraint of warfare which have not worked well. It explains that the arrangements made between 1945 and 1950 have had to struggle for survival, bearing a variety of defects, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty. It further explains that the law of war is promoted as making possible the better restraint of warfare and is founded on two sets of assumptions: the one legal, the other political. It clarifies that the legal assumptions came straight from the international law of war as it has developed and hardened over the previous three centuries. It adds that the political assumptions underlying the post-war reconstruction are as a matter of course the same optimistic ones which brought into existence the United Nations Organization and the other intergovernmental institutions (World Bank, IMF, ICJ, etc.), professedly more generous, more just, and more peaceful.Less
This section offers some explanations of the arrangements for the legal restraint of warfare which have not worked well. It explains that the arrangements made between 1945 and 1950 have had to struggle for survival, bearing a variety of defects, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty. It further explains that the law of war is promoted as making possible the better restraint of warfare and is founded on two sets of assumptions: the one legal, the other political. It clarifies that the legal assumptions came straight from the international law of war as it has developed and hardened over the previous three centuries. It adds that the political assumptions underlying the post-war reconstruction are as a matter of course the same optimistic ones which brought into existence the United Nations Organization and the other intergovernmental institutions (World Bank, IMF, ICJ, etc.), professedly more generous, more just, and more peaceful.
Barbara Donagan
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199285181
- eISBN:
- 9780191713668
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199285181.003.0010
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History
This chapter focuses on theory and practice of the laws of war in the 17th century. The laws of war were mixed in nature, form, and purpose, but they presented a comprehensive and impressive body of ...
More
This chapter focuses on theory and practice of the laws of war in the 17th century. The laws of war were mixed in nature, form, and purpose, but they presented a comprehensive and impressive body of moral, legal, and professional rules. These rules incorporated exceptions or, less formally, could be bent to suit circumstances. The means of enforcement and execution of justice are discussed.Less
This chapter focuses on theory and practice of the laws of war in the 17th century. The laws of war were mixed in nature, form, and purpose, but they presented a comprehensive and impressive body of moral, legal, and professional rules. These rules incorporated exceptions or, less formally, could be bent to suit circumstances. The means of enforcement and execution of justice are discussed.
Karma Nabulsi
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294078
- eISBN:
- 9780191599972
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294077.003.0008
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
By the end of the Geneva negotiations in 1949, significant progress had been made in the codification of the laws of war, although the question of the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful ...
More
By the end of the Geneva negotiations in 1949, significant progress had been made in the codification of the laws of war, although the question of the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants remained essentially unresolved. The book has outlined both the conceptual and practical historical contexts within which this problem was confronted, and in doing so has offered an explanation of its intractability, its argument being that three fundamentally divergent philosophies of war that cannot be reconciled lie at the heart of the problem. A number of central and important themes have been identified: (1) the book has underlined that in situations of war or military occupation, many of the traditional dichotomies in both international relations theory and political theory are lost; (2) from the perspective of international law, in contrast with the conventional depiction of the legal arena as an exclusive instrument for advancing and reconciling state interests, the analysis has shown that legal systems are also (and perhaps primarily) the expressions of ideological norms and values; and (3) the importance of ideological traditions has been demonstrated. Finally, in its treatment of the themes of war and military occupation, a number of points have been highlighted: (1) the opaque nature of occupation in nineteenth-century Europe; (2) the existence of a powerful custom of civilian resistance to occupation, not even accounted for by the makers of the laws of war; (3) the impossibility of maintaining a distinction between the public and private spheres under occupation; (4) the incoherence of a Groatian formulation in the face of such army practices as reprisal (a martialist policy); and (5) the explicit emergence of patriotism and nationalism in these situations. These points demonstrate that it was hardly surprising that the attempt to introduce a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants failed, and show that the essential truth oaboutwars of military occupation and conquest is captured in the opposition between martial and republican paradigms.Less
By the end of the Geneva negotiations in 1949, significant progress had been made in the codification of the laws of war, although the question of the legal distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants remained essentially unresolved. The book has outlined both the conceptual and practical historical contexts within which this problem was confronted, and in doing so has offered an explanation of its intractability, its argument being that three fundamentally divergent philosophies of war that cannot be reconciled lie at the heart of the problem. A number of central and important themes have been identified: (1) the book has underlined that in situations of war or military occupation, many of the traditional dichotomies in both international relations theory and political theory are lost; (2) from the perspective of international law, in contrast with the conventional depiction of the legal arena as an exclusive instrument for advancing and reconciling state interests, the analysis has shown that legal systems are also (and perhaps primarily) the expressions of ideological norms and values; and (3) the importance of ideological traditions has been demonstrated. Finally, in its treatment of the themes of war and military occupation, a number of points have been highlighted: (1) the opaque nature of occupation in nineteenth-century Europe; (2) the existence of a powerful custom of civilian resistance to occupation, not even accounted for by the makers of the laws of war; (3) the impossibility of maintaining a distinction between the public and private spheres under occupation; (4) the incoherence of a Groatian formulation in the face of such army practices as reprisal (a martialist policy); and (5) the explicit emergence of patriotism and nationalism in these situations. These points demonstrate that it was hardly surprising that the attempt to introduce a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants failed, and show that the essential truth oaboutwars of military occupation and conquest is captured in the opposition between martial and republican paradigms.
Jeff McMahan
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199548668
- eISBN:
- 9780191721045
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.003.0003
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Language
This chapter begins by offering two mutually compatible diagnoses of why the orthodox view has been perennially appealing. One is that the orthodox view makes sense as a matter of law and people tend ...
More
This chapter begins by offering two mutually compatible diagnoses of why the orthodox view has been perennially appealing. One is that the orthodox view makes sense as a matter of law and people tend to conflate the morality of war with the law of war. The other is that many of the considerations that people invoke to defend the permissibility of participation in an unjust war are actually excuses or excusing conditions rather than ground of permissibility. The chapter goes on to survey a variety of excusing conditions that are generally thought to apply to the action of combatants who fight in unjust wars, but argues that the mitigating force of these considerations is weaker than people generally assume and that they very seldom provide full excuses — that is, that they are seldom fully exculpating.Less
This chapter begins by offering two mutually compatible diagnoses of why the orthodox view has been perennially appealing. One is that the orthodox view makes sense as a matter of law and people tend to conflate the morality of war with the law of war. The other is that many of the considerations that people invoke to defend the permissibility of participation in an unjust war are actually excuses or excusing conditions rather than ground of permissibility. The chapter goes on to survey a variety of excusing conditions that are generally thought to apply to the action of combatants who fight in unjust wars, but argues that the mitigating force of these considerations is weaker than people generally assume and that they very seldom provide full excuses — that is, that they are seldom fully exculpating.
