The Justification of War and International Order最新文献

The Justification of War and International Order: From Past to Present

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0001

Hendrik Simon, Lothar Brock

引用次数: 1

Justified: Just War and the Ethics of Violence and World Order 正义:正义战争、暴力伦理与世界秩序

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0024

Chris D. Brown

{"title":"Justified: Just War and the Ethics of Violence and World Order","authors":"Chris D. Brown","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0024","url":null,"abstract":"This volume’s final Part VII on the impact of legal claims in war discourses is introduced by Chris Brown. In this chapter, he fundamentally questions the relevance of international law as a frame of reference for the justification and limitation of war. Brown turns our attention back to just war which we have discussed earlier in this volume (ch. 2 by Anthony Lang, Jr): Brown argues that, properly understood, the just war tradition can be defended against most of its critics, the exceptions being those Clausewitzian realists and Gandhian pacifists who refuse to make the kind of discriminations upon which the tradition is based. More problematic are some of the newer friends of the tradition, analytical political theorists who reject its praxis-oriented dimension, and focus on the rights and responsibilities of individuals, discounting the importance of collectivities. These writers are, in some respects, closer to the medieval tradition than are defenders of contemporary international humanitarian law, but their reliance on the ability of philosophers to decide matters of justice leads to a dogmatism uncharacteristic of the just war tradition, and their emphasis on the individual undermines the link between theory and practice. This chapter defends a traditional, albeit post-Christian, reading of the notion of justified war against both its overt opponents and its supposed friends.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115003577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

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

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0010

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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0010","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122941347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

China’s Approach to the Use of Force: A Short Review of China’s Changing Attitudes towards the Justification of Humanitarian Intervention 中国对使用武力的态度:简要回顾中国对人道主义干预正当性态度的转变

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0023

M. Chi

引用次数: 0

In the Name of State Sovereignty? The Justification of War in Russian History and the Present 以国家主权的名义?俄国历史和现在的战争正当性

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0022

P. Robinson, M. Antonov

引用次数: 1

The War on Terror and the Law of War: Shaping International Order in the Context of Irregular Violence 反恐战争与战争法:在非正常暴力背景下塑造国际秩序

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0017

Michael Stohl

{"title":"The War on Terror and the Law of War: Shaping International Order in the Context of Irregular Violence","authors":"Michael Stohl","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0017","url":null,"abstract":"After 11 September 2001 it was routinely declared that 9/11 ‘changed everything’ and that what had changed was immutable. Following the synthesis on democracies’ war justifications over the last three decades presented by Anna Geis and Wolfgang Wagner, Michael Stohl focuses on US-American justifications of the ‘war on terror’: He explores how 9/11 altered the constructions of the threat of terrorism and how these constructions in turn affected arguments and justification for the use of force in the context of counter-terrorism. The creation of the ‘war on terror’ was a core component of the construction of new national security threats. This was accompanied by the securitization of counter-terrorism. Increased fear of further attacks reinforced the persistence of a Westphalian interstate system and the central role of sovereignty claims within the global governance regime. This altered the balance within most democratic national states between law enforcement approaches for domestic threats and alliance-based or unilateral armed responses for international threats. The chapter explores how this has further altered arguments for and justifications of the use of force at home and abroad.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123035124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Justification and Critique: Humanitarianism and Imperialism over Time 辩护与批判:人道主义与帝国主义

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0026

B. Chimni

{"title":"Justification and Critique: Humanitarianism and Imperialism over Time","authors":"B. Chimni","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0026","url":null,"abstract":"In his second contribution to this volume, B.S. Chimni sketches a history of international humanitarianism. He explores its complicity with the politics of imperialism which manifests itself in its contribution to the justification of the use of force. While Arnulf Becker Lorca (ch 5) and Lauren Benton (ch 9) address this issue in specific historical contexts—the Spanish-native encounters in the sixteenth century and parts of the nineteenth-century British Empire—this chapter can be read as a step towards writing a critical global history of humanitarianism, a step crucial to constructing an idea of humanitarianism that is not internally linked to the vision of empire. The chapter begins by briefly looking at the meaning of humanitarianism as it has evolved from colonialism to the present times. Subsequently it explores the idea of writing a global history of humanitarianism that would take cognizance of the non-western critique of the notion of humanitarianism. Third, it examines the role of humanitarianism in the era of colonialism in comparison to the practice of contemporary humanitarianism in the backdrop of key features of present world order. Finally it debates how we can integrate power and principles to avoid the complicity of humanitarianism with the politics of imperialism.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114475562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Islamic Law of War and Peace and the International Legal Order: Convergence or Dissonance? 伊斯兰战争与和平法与国际法律秩序:趋同还是不协调?

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0021

S. Hashmi

{"title":"The Islamic Law of War and Peace and the International Legal Order: Convergence or Dissonance?","authors":"S. Hashmi","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0021","url":null,"abstract":"Sohail Hashmi introduces Part VI on non-Western perspectives on the justification of war and international order by engaging with Islamic discourses on war and peace: Muslim jurists working in the eighth through the fourteenth centuries developed a wide-ranging theory of world order (siyar) that elaborated laws of war (jihad) and peace. This theory was never fully implemented in state practice, but given the conservatism of Muslim jurisprudence in later centuries, it was neither revised nor renounced. Thus, this classical theory exists as a sort of parallel legal system to public international law today, confronting modern Muslims with questions of conflict or compatibility between the two. Three broad Muslim responses may be discerned: assimilation, accommodation, and rejection. The assimilationists treat the classical theory largely as a historical and now obsolete conception of world order. They accept the universality of international law and argue that most Muslims do so as well. The accommodationists claim that while international law appropriately governs the conduct of Muslim states in international society as a whole, Islamic law should have a role in the mutual relations of Muslim states. In other words, they see the potential for an Islamic international law alongside public international law. The rejectionists view international law as an alien code imposed on Muslims by Europeans. They affirm the superiority of Islamic law over international law and call for its application by Muslim states, not just in their mutual relations, but with non-Muslim states as well. Of these three positions, Muslim scholarship and practice overwhelmingly favour the assimilationist or accommodationist views. The rejectionist position is propounded by a limited number of the most conservative scholars and activists.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134274675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

‘We Are Going to War.’ Narratives of Self-Defence and Responsibility in Afghanistan War Documentaries “我们要开战了。”“阿富汗战争纪录片中的自卫与责任叙事”

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0018

Axel Heck, G. Schlag

{"title":"‘We Are Going to War.’ Narratives of Self-Defence and Responsibility in Afghanistan War Documentaries","authors":"Axel Heck, G. Schlag","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0018","url":null,"abstract":"Most chapters in this volume focus on diplomatic and scholarly war discourses. In contrast, Axel Heck and Gabi Schlag take a closer look at cultural representations of war: In this chapter, they show how two documentary films about the Afghanistan war—Restrepo (D: Sebastian Junger/Tim Hetherington, 2010) and its sequel Korengal (D: Sebastian Junger, 2014)—craft justification narratives that reproduce the normativity of a global order based on self-defence and responsibility. These documentaries offer rare opportunities to see how the ‘managers of violence’ act in combat and how they reflect upon the normativity of their doings. Heck and Schlag argue that the experience of those who carry out the ethically and emotionally ambivalent business of war and suffer from the traumatic consequences of violence opens up a new perspective on justification as documentaries like Restrepo and Korengal create a publicly shared imaginary of war. By making these soldiers, their bodies, and emotions visible and giving voice to them, documentary films represent a subjective position that is often neglected and marginalized in IR approaches to the justification of war.","PeriodicalId":303490,"journal":{"name":"The Justification of War and International Order","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134413788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

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

The Justification of War and International Order Pub Date : 2021-01-21 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0012

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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0012","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131323722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0