Juridification, Politicization, and Circumvention of Law: (De-)Legitimizing Chemical Warfare before and after Ypres, 1899–1925

Milo Vec
{"title":"Juridification, Politicization, and Circumvention of Law: (De-)Legitimizing Chemical Warfare before and after Ypres, 1899–1925","authors":"Milo Vec","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the most terrifying weapons introduced to the First World War by the progress of natural sciences and technology was poison gas. While the chapters by Isabel V. Hull, Aimee Genell and Mustafa Aksakal deal with the German and Ottoman justifications of the respective entries into the war, Miloš Vec turns to the justificatory discourse of chemical warfare. After the first German gas attack in 1915 at Ypres a political and legal debate started. The justificatory discourse of chemical warfare took up elements from international treaties and doctrine, discussing the centuries-old use of poisonous weapons which was now being dealt with in the Hague Conventions. Political interests, military necessity, and ethical standards clashed when interpreting the provisions of Article 23 of the ‘Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land’ from 1899, prohibiting ‘(t)o employ poison or poisoned arms’. This chapter discusses the international legal debate around chemical weapons as it relates to politics before, during, and after the First World War. The historical justification of a particular type of weapon and warfare illustrates the conceptualization of international law and politics at that time.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"466 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/9780198865308.003.0012","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

One of the most terrifying weapons introduced to the First World War by the progress of natural sciences and technology was poison gas. While the chapters by Isabel V. Hull, Aimee Genell and Mustafa Aksakal deal with the German and Ottoman justifications of the respective entries into the war, Miloš Vec turns to the justificatory discourse of chemical warfare. After the first German gas attack in 1915 at Ypres a political and legal debate started. The justificatory discourse of chemical warfare took up elements from international treaties and doctrine, discussing the centuries-old use of poisonous weapons which was now being dealt with in the Hague Conventions. Political interests, military necessity, and ethical standards clashed when interpreting the provisions of Article 23 of the ‘Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land’ from 1899, prohibiting ‘(t)o employ poison or poisoned arms’. This chapter discusses the international legal debate around chemical weapons as it relates to politics before, during, and after the First World War. The historical justification of a particular type of weapon and warfare illustrates the conceptualization of international law and politics at that time.
合法化、政治化和法律规避:伊普尔前后化学战的合法化,1899-1925
随着自然科学技术的进步,第一次世界大战中出现的最可怕的武器之一是毒气。Isabel V. Hull, Aimee Genell和Mustafa Aksakal的章节讨论了德国和奥斯曼帝国各自参战的理由,而milosv Vec则转向了化学战的理由论述。1915年德国第一次毒气袭击伊普尔后,一场政治和法律辩论开始了。化学战的正当性论述从国际条约和学说中汲取了一些元素,讨论了几个世纪以来使用有毒武器的问题,目前正在《海牙公约》中加以处理。政治利益、军事需要和道德标准在解释1899年《陆战法律和惯例公约》第23条禁止“(t)使用毒药或有毒武器”的规定时发生冲突。本章讨论了围绕化学武器的国际法律辩论,因为它与第一次世界大战之前、期间和之后的政治有关。一种特定类型的武器和战争的历史理由说明了当时国际法和政治的概念化。
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