From Antiwar Politics to Antitorture Politics

Law and War Pub Date : 2011-11-29 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1966231
Samuel Moyn
{"title":"From Antiwar Politics to Antitorture Politics","authors":"Samuel Moyn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1966231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the political status and cultural salience in the United States of the law of war during the era of the Vietnam conflict, for the sake of comparison with the post-9/11 centrality of concerns about detention and torture. The main question is why, when the violations of the laws of war were so much worse in the earlier period, they were not the fulcrum of public debate around war. The answer proposed is that the presence of a powerful social movement agitating against the war itself -- which meant concern about aggressive warfare to the extent international law figured in public debate at all -- marginalized concerns about the conduct of war. Even once My Lai came to light, atrocity consciousness fed an antiwar movement. The main groups and figures covered are the Lawyers Committee Concerning American Policy in Vietnam, Richard Falk of Princeton University, and Telford Taylor of Columbia University.","PeriodicalId":427492,"journal":{"name":"Law and War","volume":"68 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and War","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1966231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper examines the political status and cultural salience in the United States of the law of war during the era of the Vietnam conflict, for the sake of comparison with the post-9/11 centrality of concerns about detention and torture. The main question is why, when the violations of the laws of war were so much worse in the earlier period, they were not the fulcrum of public debate around war. The answer proposed is that the presence of a powerful social movement agitating against the war itself -- which meant concern about aggressive warfare to the extent international law figured in public debate at all -- marginalized concerns about the conduct of war. Even once My Lai came to light, atrocity consciousness fed an antiwar movement. The main groups and figures covered are the Lawyers Committee Concerning American Policy in Vietnam, Richard Falk of Princeton University, and Telford Taylor of Columbia University.
从反战政治到反酷刑政治
本文考察了越战时期战争法在美国的政治地位和文化突出性,以便与9/11之后对拘留和酷刑的关注进行比较。主要的问题是,当违反战争法的行为在早期如此严重时,为什么它们没有成为围绕战争的公众辩论的支点。人们提出的答案是,一场强烈反对战争本身的社会运动的存在——这意味着对侵略战争的担忧达到了国际法在公开辩论中所占的地位——边缘化了对战争行为的担忧。即使在美莱村事件曝光后,暴行意识也助长了反战运动。主要团体和人物包括美国对越南政策律师委员会、普林斯顿大学的理查德·福尔克和哥伦比亚大学的特尔福德·泰勒。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信