The Great War and International Law: German Justifications of Prevention and Pre-emptive Self-Defence

I. Hull
{"title":"The Great War and International Law: German Justifications of Prevention and Pre-emptive Self-Defence","authors":"I. Hull","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Isabel V. Hull uses the German declarations of war in 1914 to examine three issues: 1) the role of customary international law (CIL) in statesmen’s decision to go to war (using Germany as an example); 2) the assumptions that state actors held a jus ad bellum; and, especially, 3) how they distinguished self-defence, prevention, pre-emption, and aggression. Hull uses not the claims of jurists, but the arguments and actions of civilian and military leaders, i.e. those who actually made the decisions for war. With this, she continues Anuschka Tischer’s and Hendrik Simon’s examination of the question whether there was a transformation of war discourses in (early) modernity that led to overcoming the need to justify war. The chapter confirms that, even as Germany began a ‘preventive war’, the European state consensus held that, on the continent, preventive war was illegal, pre-emptive war was severely restrained, and genuine self-defence – meaning both fending off armed attack against one’s territory, independence, or sovereignty, and defending the treaty-structure that guaranteed the inter-state order – was the only justification for war acceptable to the community of states.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Justification of War and International Order","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Isabel V. Hull uses the German declarations of war in 1914 to examine three issues: 1) the role of customary international law (CIL) in statesmen’s decision to go to war (using Germany as an example); 2) the assumptions that state actors held a jus ad bellum; and, especially, 3) how they distinguished self-defence, prevention, pre-emption, and aggression. Hull uses not the claims of jurists, but the arguments and actions of civilian and military leaders, i.e. those who actually made the decisions for war. With this, she continues Anuschka Tischer’s and Hendrik Simon’s examination of the question whether there was a transformation of war discourses in (early) modernity that led to overcoming the need to justify war. The chapter confirms that, even as Germany began a ‘preventive war’, the European state consensus held that, on the continent, preventive war was illegal, pre-emptive war was severely restrained, and genuine self-defence – meaning both fending off armed attack against one’s territory, independence, or sovereignty, and defending the treaty-structure that guaranteed the inter-state order – was the only justification for war acceptable to the community of states.
第一次世界大战与国际法:德国对预防和先发制人自卫的辩护
伊莎贝尔·赫尔(Isabel V. Hull)以1914年德国宣战为例,考察了三个问题:1)习惯国际法在政治家决定参战中的作用(以德国为例);2)假设国家行为者持有战争法;特别是,他们如何区分自卫、预防、先发制人和侵略。赫尔没有引用法学家的观点,而是引用了文职和军事领导人的观点和行动,即那些真正做出战争决定的人。在此基础上,她继续了Anuschka Tischer和Hendrik Simon对这个问题的研究,即(早期)现代性中是否存在战争话语的转变,从而克服了为战争辩护的需要。这一章证实,即使德国开始了一场“预防性战争”,欧洲国家一致认为,在欧洲大陆上,预防性战争是非法的,先发制人的战争受到严格限制,真正的自卫——既意味着抵御对自己领土、独立或主权的武装攻击,又意味着捍卫保证国家间秩序的条约结构——是国家共同体唯一可以接受的战争理由。
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