Efforts to moderate conflict are as old as conflict itself. Throughout the ages, restraint in warfare has been informed by religious and ethical considerations, chivalry and class, and, increasingly since the mid-19th century, a body of customary and treaty law variously referred to as the laws of war, the law of armed conflict (LOAC) or international humanitarian law (IHL). As they evolved from the mid-19th century, these laws were increasingly underpinned by humanitarianism, then in the mid-20th century, were assumed to be universal. But violations of these restraints are also as old as conflict itself. The history of conflict is replete with examples of exclusions from protections designed to moderate warfare. This edited volume explores the degree to which protections in modern warfare might be informed by notions of 'civility' and 'barbarism', or, to put it another way, asks if only those deemed to be civilised are afforded protections prescribed by the laws of war?
Loading metrics...
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed.
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.