Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874

Eyal Benvenisti, Doreen Lustig
{"title":"Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874","authors":"Eyal Benvenisti, Doreen Lustig","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2985781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this article, we challenge the canonical narrative about civil society’s efforts to discipline warfare during the mid-19th century – a narrative of progressive evolution of Enlightenment-inspired laws of war, later to be termed international humanitarian law. Conversely, our historical account shows how the debate over participation in international law-making and the content of the law reflected social and political tensions within and between European states. While the multifaceted influence of civil society was an important catalyst for the inter-governmental codification of the laws of war, the content of that codification did not simply reflect humanitarian sensibilities. Rather, as civil society posed a threat to the governmental monopoly over the regulation of war, the turn to inter-state codification of IHL also assisted governments in securing their authority as the sole regulators in the international terrain. We argue that, in codifying the laws of war, the main concern of key European governments was not to protect civilians from combatants’ fire, but rather to protect combatants from civilians eager to take up arms to defend their nation – even against their own governments’ wishes. We further argue that the concern with placing ‘a gun on the shoulder of every socialist’ extended far beyond the battlefield. Monarchs and emperors turned to international law to put the dreaded nationalist and revolutionary genies back in the bottle. These concerns were brought to the fore most forcefully in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 and the subsequent short-lived, but violent, rise of the Paris Commune. These events formed the backdrop to the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the first comprehensive text on the laws of war. This Declaration exposed civilians to war’s harms and supported the growing capitalist economy by ensuring that market interests would be protected from the scourge of war and the consequences of defeat.","PeriodicalId":254768,"journal":{"name":"Legal History eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal History eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2985781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In this article, we challenge the canonical narrative about civil society’s efforts to discipline warfare during the mid-19th century – a narrative of progressive evolution of Enlightenment-inspired laws of war, later to be termed international humanitarian law. Conversely, our historical account shows how the debate over participation in international law-making and the content of the law reflected social and political tensions within and between European states. While the multifaceted influence of civil society was an important catalyst for the inter-governmental codification of the laws of war, the content of that codification did not simply reflect humanitarian sensibilities. Rather, as civil society posed a threat to the governmental monopoly over the regulation of war, the turn to inter-state codification of IHL also assisted governments in securing their authority as the sole regulators in the international terrain. We argue that, in codifying the laws of war, the main concern of key European governments was not to protect civilians from combatants’ fire, but rather to protect combatants from civilians eager to take up arms to defend their nation – even against their own governments’ wishes. We further argue that the concern with placing ‘a gun on the shoulder of every socialist’ extended far beyond the battlefield. Monarchs and emperors turned to international law to put the dreaded nationalist and revolutionary genies back in the bottle. These concerns were brought to the fore most forcefully in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 and the subsequent short-lived, but violent, rise of the Paris Commune. These events formed the backdrop to the Brussels Declaration of 1874, the first comprehensive text on the laws of war. This Declaration exposed civilians to war’s harms and supported the growing capitalist economy by ensuring that market interests would be protected from the scourge of war and the consequences of defeat.
垄断战争:编纂战争法以重申政府权威,1856-1874
在本文中,我们对19世纪中叶民间社会努力约束战争的权威叙述提出了挑战——这是一种启蒙运动启发的战争法(后来被称为国际人道法)逐步演变的叙述。相反,我们的历史记录显示了关于参与国际立法和法律内容的辩论如何反映了欧洲国家内部和之间的社会和政治紧张局势。虽然民间社会的多方面影响是政府间战争法编纂的重要催化剂,但编纂的内容并不仅仅反映人道主义情感。相反,由于公民社会对政府对战争管制的垄断构成了威胁,因此转向国际人道法的国家间编纂也有助于政府确保其作为国际领域唯一监管者的权威。我们认为,在制定战争法的过程中,欧洲主要国家政府的主要关注点不是保护平民免受战斗人员的伤害,而是保护战斗人员免受平民的伤害,这些平民渴望拿起武器保卫自己的国家——甚至违背了他们自己政府的意愿。我们进一步认为,把“枪放在每个社会主义者的肩膀上”的关注远远超出了战场。君主和皇帝求助于国际法,把可怕的民族主义和革命精灵放回瓶子里。这些担忧在1870-1871年的普法战争和随后短暂但暴力的巴黎公社的兴起中得到了最有力的体现。这些事件构成了1874年《布鲁塞尔宣言》的背景,这是第一份关于战争法的全面文本。这份宣言将平民暴露在战争的危害之下,并通过确保市场利益免受战祸和失败后果的影响,支持了不断发展的资本主义经济。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信