规范简史1

{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几千年来,战争规则的一个主要目标是战利品的分配。古典哲学家认为战争是一种占有欲的活动。征服使拨款合法化,部分原因是它使战争自给自足。自筹资金的方面——掠夺奴隶——是被允许的,因为它们最终有利于城邦。从理论上讲,这与掠夺性行为不同,比如绑架,后者只对个人有利。数百年来,征服一直是在战争中夺取财产和奴隶的基本理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Brief History of Norms I
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信