{"title":"规范简史1","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/9781108652124.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For millennia, a principal object of war regulation was the division of spoils. The classical philosophers assumed that war was an acquisitive activity. Conquest justified appropriation in part because it made war self-financing. The selffinancing aspects – the taking of slaves and plunder – were permitted because they ultimately benefited the polis. This was in theory distinct frompredatory acts, such as kidnapping, which only benefited individuals. Conquest remained the basic justification for taking property and slaves in war for hundreds of years.","PeriodicalId":300242,"journal":{"name":"War Economies and International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Brief History of Norms I\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/9781108652124.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For millennia, a principal object of war regulation was the division of spoils. The classical philosophers assumed that war was an acquisitive activity. Conquest justified appropriation in part because it made war self-financing. The selffinancing aspects – the taking of slaves and plunder – were permitted because they ultimately benefited the polis. This was in theory distinct frompredatory acts, such as kidnapping, which only benefited individuals. Conquest remained the basic justification for taking property and slaves in war for hundreds of years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"War Economies and International Law\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"War Economies and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108652124.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"War Economies and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108652124.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
For millennia, a principal object of war regulation was the division of spoils. The classical philosophers assumed that war was an acquisitive activity. Conquest justified appropriation in part because it made war self-financing. The selffinancing aspects – the taking of slaves and plunder – were permitted because they ultimately benefited the polis. This was in theory distinct frompredatory acts, such as kidnapping, which only benefited individuals. Conquest remained the basic justification for taking property and slaves in war for hundreds of years.