Conclusion

Clapham Andrew
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"Clapham Andrew","doi":"10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This concluding chapter revisits the idea that states no longer rationalize their violence against each other as part of a longstanding tradition of going to war. It therefore highlights that it is no longer appropriate to apply the logic of war that justifies killing, detention and destruction as part of the necessities of war. The chapter recalls how governments claim belligerent rights to acquire territory and neutral ships, to destroy things they consider are part of the enemy's war-sustaining economy, and to intern people as law of war detainees. It suggests that aspects of old ideas about what is permissible in war have survived, when many of them should have been buried along with the legal institution of War.","PeriodicalId":77260,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and war","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and war","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198810469.003.0011","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

This concluding chapter revisits the idea that states no longer rationalize their violence against each other as part of a longstanding tradition of going to war. It therefore highlights that it is no longer appropriate to apply the logic of war that justifies killing, detention and destruction as part of the necessities of war. The chapter recalls how governments claim belligerent rights to acquire territory and neutral ships, to destroy things they consider are part of the enemy's war-sustaining economy, and to intern people as law of war detainees. It suggests that aspects of old ideas about what is permissible in war have survived, when many of them should have been buried along with the legal institution of War.
结论
最后一章回顾了这样一个观点,即国家之间不再将彼此之间的暴力行为合理化,并将其作为长期战争传统的一部分。因此,它突出表明,将杀戮、拘留和破坏作为战争必要的一部分加以辩护的战争逻辑已不再合适。这一章回顾了政府是如何主张交战权利来获取领土和中立国船只,摧毁他们认为是敌人维持战争的经济的一部分,以及根据战争法拘留人。这表明,关于战争中什么是被允许的旧观念的某些方面幸存了下来,而其中许多观点本应与战争的法律制度一起被埋葬。
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