Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T13:32:24.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unbound in War? International Law and Britain's Participation in the Korean War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2020

Sean RICHMOND Open the ORCID record for Sean RICHMOND [Opens in a new window]
Sean RICHMOND*
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Canadasean.richmond@carleton.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This interdisciplinary paper examines the influence and interpretation of international law in the use of force by an important but understudied country, Britain, during one of the most significant conflicts since 1945: the Korean War of 1950–53. Through innovative application of sociological theories in International Law [IL] and International Relations [IR], and rigorous qualitative analysis of declassified documents, I advance a two-pronged argument. First, contrary to what some dominant IR perspectives might predict, Britain's involvement in the war suggests that international law can play four underappreciated roles when states use force: (1) it helps constitute the identity of actors; (2) it helps regulate their conduct; (3) it permits and legitimates certain actions; and (4) it structures the process by which agents seek to develop new rules. However, contrary to what many IL approaches might predict, it is unclear whether these effects are ultimately attributable to an obligatory quality in law.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 233 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Barrister & Solicitor (Ontario). Instructor, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. orcid id: 0000-0002-2472-1836. This paper expands on doctoral research originally conducted at Oxford University under a Commonwealth Scholarship and a Fellowship from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. For helpful comments on earlier drafts and findings, I would like to thank Dapo Akande, Karen Alter, David Blagden, Martha Finnemore, Nina Hall, Andrew Hurrell, Edward Keene, Amy King, Michael Manulak, Travers McLeod, Sarah Percy, Ruben Reike, Rebecca Sanders, Duncan Snidal, Nora Stappert, Henning Tamm, Michael Urban, Jennifer Welsh, and the two anonymous reviewers for this Journal.

References

1. See e.g. MORGENTHAU, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006)Google Scholar.

2. GUZMAN, Andrew, “A Compliance Based Theory of International Law” (2002) 90 California Law Review 1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar; GOLDSMITH, Jack and POSNER, Eric, The Limits of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

3. See e.g. HENKIN, Louis, How Nations Behave, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; WHEELER, Nicholas, “The Kosovo Bombing Campaign” in REUS-SMIT, Christian, ed., The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BRUNNÉE, Jutta and TOOPE, Stephen J., Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DICKINSON, Laura, “Military Lawyers on the Battlefield: An Empirical Account of International Law Compliance” (2010) 104 American Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; DILL, Janina, Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; MCLEOD, Travers, Rule of Law in War: International Law and United States Counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; RICHMOND, Sean, “Transferring Responsibility? The Influence and Interpretation of International Law in Australia's Approach to Afghan Detainees” (2016) 17 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law 240CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. CUMINGS, Bruce, “Korean War” in KRIEGER, Joel, ed., The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 474Google Scholar.

5. HURRELL, Andrew, “International Society and the Study of Regimes: A Reflective Approach” in BECK, Robert J., AREND, Anthony Clark, and LUGT, Robert D. Vander, eds., International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), at 206–26Google Scholar.

6. BENNETT, Andrew, “Process Tracing” in BOX-STEFFENSMEIER, Janet M., BRADY, Henry E., and COLLIER, David, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), at 702–21Google Scholar.

7. PRICE, Richard, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (New York: Cornell University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; TANNENWALD, Nina, The Nuclear Taboo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; PERCY, Sarah, Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich, Rules, Norms, and Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; BYERS, Michael, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; GOLDSTEIN, Judith, KAHLER, Miles, KEOHANE, Robert O., and SLAUGHTER, Anne-Marie eds., “Special Issue on ‘Legalization and World Politics’” (2000) 54 International Organization 385CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. See e.g. CHAYES, Abram, The Cuban Missile Crisis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; BECK, Robert J., The Grenada Invasion (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Wheeler, supra note 3; SCHARF, Michael P. and WILLIAMS, Paul R., Shaping Foreign Policy in Times of Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dickinson, supra note 3; and Dill, supra note 3.

10. See e.g. ROBERTS, Adam, “NATO's ‘Humanitarian War’ over Kosovo” (1999) 41 Survival 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; FALK, Richard, The Costs of War (London: Routledge, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McLeod, supra note 3. For important exceptions to the American and contemporary focus of existing literature, see PEEVERS, Charlotte, The Politics of Justifying Force: The Suez Crisis, the Iraq War, and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and HULL, Isabel V., A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law During the Great War (New York: Cornell University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Cumings, supra note 4 at 475.

12. See e.g. BOWIE, Robert R., Suez 1956 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.; ANDERSON, David, “British Abuse and Torture in Kenya's Counterinsurgency, 1952–1960” (2012) 23 Small Wars & Insurgencies 700CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. See e.g. Kratochwil, supra note 8; REUS-SMIT, Christian, ed., The Politics of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. FINNEMORE, Martha, “Are Legal Norms Distinctive?” (2000) 32 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 699Google Scholar. For an influential legal study of this difficult issue, see FRANCK, Thomas, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

15. See e.g. Hurrell, supra note 5 at 214; Byers, supra note 8 at 6; SIMMONS, Beth A. Mobilizing for Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) at 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brunnée and Toope, supra note 3 at 9–13.

16. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, signed 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950).

17. Brunnée and Toope, supra note 3.

18. WENDT, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) at 92–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reus-Smit, supra note 13 at 21–2.

19. Reus-Smit, supra note 13 at 20.

20. BEST, Geoffrey, War and Law Since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 80–114Google Scholar.

21. GOLDSTEIN, Judith and KEOHANE, Robert O., eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (New York: Cornell University Press, 1993) at 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmons, supra note 15 at 5–8.

22. Reus-Smit, supra note 13 at 17.

23. KRATOCHWIL, Friedrich, “How Do Norms Matter?” in BYERS, Michael, ed., The Role of Law in International Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 35 at 48Google Scholar.

24. Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

25. Tannenwald, supra note 7 at 46.

26. KENNEDY, David, “Lawfare and Warfare” in CRAWFORD, James and KOSKENNIEMI, Martti, eds., The Cambridge Companion to International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Brunnée and Toope, supra note 3 at 64–5.

28. Ibid; Reus-Smit, supra note 13 at 22.

29. LOWE, Vaughan, ROBERTS, Adam, WELSH, Jennifer, and ZAUM, Domink, eds., The United Nations Security Council and War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 9–13Google Scholar.

30. Hurrell, supra note 5 at 221.

31. Tannenwald, supra note 7 at 69.

32. These implications are based in part on Reus-Smit, supra note 13 at 39.

33. Simmons, supra note 15 at 7.

34. Percy, supra note 7 at 36–7.

35. Beck, supra note 9 at 207.

36. MACDONALD, Callum A., Britain and the Korean War (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990) at 10–11Google Scholar.

37. TRUMAN, Harry S., Memoirs: Volume 2 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956) at 357–8Google Scholar.

38. UNSC Resolution 82 (25 June 1950), [S/1501].

39. UNSC Resolution 83 (27 June 1950), [S/1511].

40. UNSC Resolution 84 (7 July 1950), [S/1588].

41. FARRAR-HOCKLEY, Anthony, The British Part in the Korean War, v. 1 (London: HMSO, 1990) at 143–58Google Scholar.

42. Cumings, supra note 4 at 474–5.

43. Farrar-Hockley, supra note 41 at 1.

44. See e.g. Conclusions of a Cabinet Meeting, 29 November 1950, [CAB128/18], Doc. 79 in YASAMEE, H.J. and HAMILTON, K.A., eds., Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series II: Volume IV, Korea (London: HMSO, 1991), at 215–21Google Scholar.

45. SELF, Robert, British Foreign and Defence Policy since 1945 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) at 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. MacDonald, supra note 36; Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44; Farrar-Hockley, supra note 41; Self, supra note 45. For a historical overview of Britain's foreign and domestic concerns during the early Cold War, see DEIGHTON, Anne, “Britain and the Cold War, 1945–1955” in LEFFLER, Melvyn P. and WESTAD, Odd Arne, eds., The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume 1: Origins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 112Google Scholar.

47. MacDonald, supra note 36 at 4.

48. British Overseas Obligations, 27 April 1950, Prime Minister's Office (PREM) 8/1202, in PHYTHIAN, Mark, The Labour Party, War and International Relations, 1945–2006 (London: Routledge, 2007), at 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. RA, Jong-yil, “Special Relationship at War: The Anglo-American Relationship During the Korean War” (1984) 7/3 Journal of Strategic Studies 301 at 304Google Scholar. Similarly, Anne Deighton notes that, from 1945 to 1955, the defining bipartisan trait of UK foreign policy was “to sustain the image and the reality of great powerdom” (Deighton, supra note 46 at 113).

50. Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44.

51. Farrar-Hockley, supra note 41 at 31–3.

52. Ibid.

53. Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at vi.

54. One light fleet carrier, two cruisers, and five destroyers and frigates.

55. D.O.(50)48, in Minutes of a Defence Committee Meeting, 28 June 1950, [FK1015/139], Doc. 4, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 7–9.

56. Minister of State Meeting, 15 July 1950, Doc. 21, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 70.

57. MacDonald, supra note 36 at 21.

58. Phythian, supra note 48 at 42–3.

59. MORGAN, Kenneth O., Labour in Power, 1945–1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) at 423Google Scholar.

60. Minute by Attlee of 17 August, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 111 (ftn. 6).

61. DONOUGHUE, Bernard and JONES, George W., Herbert Morrison (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973) at 463Google Scholar.

62. HARRIS, Kenneth, Attlee (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1982) at 455–6Google Scholar.

63. Phythian, supra note 48 at 22.

64. HC Debates, Hansard, 11 March 1935, col. 46.

65. Phythian, supra note 48 at 22. On Labour's support for the League and UN more generally, see VICKERS, Rhiannon, The Labour Party and the World, v.1: The Evolution of Labour's Foreign Policy, 1900–51 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; VICKERS, Rhiannon, The Labour Party and the World, v. 2: Labour's Foreign Policy Since 1951 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. Minute from Mr Attlee to Mr Eden, 18 July 1945, Doc. 179, in BUTLER, Rohan, PELLY, M.E., and YASAMEE, H.J., eds., Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series 1: Volume 1, 1945 (London: HMSO, 1984), at 363–4Google Scholar.

67. Memorandum by Mr Jebb, 29 July 1945, Doc. 459, in Butler et al., supra note 66 at 990–4.

68. Memorandum by Attlee, 1 September 1945, Doc. 18, in BULLEN, Roger and PELLY, M.E., Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series 1: Volume II, 1945 (London: HMSO, 1985), at 42–3Google Scholar.

69. SMITH, Raymond and ZAMETICA, John, “The Cold Warrior: Clement Attlee Reconsidered, 1945–47” (1985) 61 International Affairs 237 at 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70. Ibid., Alan Brooke Diary, 5/11, 3 September 1945.

71. ATTLEE, Clement R., As It Happened (London: Odhams Press, 1954) at 198–9Google Scholar.

72. Quoted in Harris, supra note 62 at 302.

73. Minutes of a Defence Committee Meeting, 28 June 1950, [FK1015/139], Doc. 4, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 8.

74. MacDonald, supra note 36 at 26.

75. Minutes of a Minister of State Meeting, 30 June 1950, [FK1022/59], Doc. 9, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 21.

76. Ibid.

77. WOLF, David C., “‘To Secure a Convenience’: Britain Recognizes China 1950” (1983) 18 Journal of Contemporary History 299 at 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78. Draft Paper by R.H. Scott, 24 July 1950, [FC1024/51], in Morgan, supra note 59 at 424.

79. Ibid.

80. Chayes, supra note 9; Franck, supra note 14; Wheeler, supra note 3; Scharf and Williams, supra note 9.

81. Truman, supra note 37 at 354–7; STUECK, William, The Korean War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. Farrar-Hockley, supra note 41 at 32–3.

83. Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at vi.

84. Truman, supra note 37 at 357.

85. Mr. Younger to Sir Jebb, 2 July 1950, [UP2113/4], Doc. 10, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 24–6.

86. Ibid.

87. Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 26.

88. See Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI (entered into force 24 October 1945).

89. Mr. Younger to Sir Franks (Washington), 8 July 1950, [FK1022/56], Doc. 15, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 42.

90. US Department of State Bulletin, XXIII, 578, 31 July 1950, at 166.

91. Truman, supra note 37 at 354.

92. Letter from the Attorney-General to the Lord Chancellor, 4 September 1950, annex to Legal Implications of the Korean Conflict, 14 September 1950, C.P.(50)207 [Legal Letter].

93. See e.g. the two-part newspaper article by Keeston entitled “International Law and Korea” Manchester Guardian (29, 31 July 1950).

94. Conclusions of a Cabinet Meeting, 4 July 1950, [CAB128/18], Doc. 11, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 28 [Cabinet Conclusions].

95. HC Debates, Hansard, 5 July 1950, Col. 494.

96. Cabinet Conclusions, supra note 94.

97. Ibid.

98. HC Debates, 5 July 1950, col. 495.

99. Legal Letter, supra note 92.

100. FRANCK, Thomas, Recourse to Force (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) at 24–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101. Ibid.

102. Intel No.143, 7 July 1950, [UP2113/53], in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 22 (ftn. 8).

103. Cabinet Conclusions, supra note 94.

104. Ibid.

105. HC Debates, 5 July 1950, col. 491.

106. Legal Letter, supra note 92.

107. Ibid.

108. Ibid.

109. Conclusions of a Cabinet Meeting, 18 September 1950, C.M.(50)60th Conclusions.

110. C.P.(50)307 on International Status of Korean Conflict, 11 December 1950, [CAB129/43], Calendar i to Doc. 100, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 281.

111. Ibid.

112. Conclusions of a Cabinet Meeting, 2 January 1951, [CAB128/19], Doc. 100, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 280–1.

113. Ibid.

114. HIGGINS, Rosalyn, United Nations Peacekeeping: Volume 2 Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) at 163Google Scholar.

115. Ibid.

116. Possible Course of Action under U.N. Charter in Korea, [FK1015/19], Doc.10, calendar i, in Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at 26.

117. Legal Letter, supra note 92.

118. Ibid.

119. Yasamee and Hamilton, supra note 44 at viii.

120. HERMES, Walter G., United States Army in the Korean War (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1966) at 135–6Google Scholar.

121. Legal Letter, supra note 92.

122. Ibid.

123. See 1949 Third Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of POWs, supra note 16.

124. Hermes, supra note 120 at 135.

125. MACDONALD, Callum A., “‘Heroes Behind Barbed Wire’: The US, Britain and the POW Issue in the Korean War” in COTTON, James and NEARY, Ian, eds., The Korean War in History (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1989), 135 at 135–6Google Scholar.

126. Ibid.

127. Minute by Eden, FK1071/151, in MacDonald, supra note 125 at 145.

128. Ibid., Minute by Churchill, 25 March 1952, FK1551/33.

129. MacDonald, supra note 36 at 72.

130. Paper on POWs, 23 April 1952, FO371/99632, in DOCKRILL, Michael, “The Foreign Office, Anglo-American Relations and the Korean Truce Negotiations July 1951–July 1953” in COTTON, James and NEARY, Ian, eds., The Korean War in History (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1989), 100 at 106Google Scholar.

131. Ibid., at 106.

132. Ibid., Eden to Attlee, 1 May 1952, FO371/99572.

133. See e.g. Richmond, supra note 3, for a related examination of the impact and interpretation of international law in Australia's approach to Afghan detainees.

134. Anderson, supra note 12.

135. On the Iraq War, see Peevers, supra note 10.

136. I thank the editors of this Journal and one of the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for this important observation. The Gulf War of 1991 may be particularly relevant for further study, as it—like Korea—also involved a rare authorization from the Security Council for states to use collective force to restore international peace.

137. See e.g. Tannenwald, supra note 7.

138. See e.g. Kratochwil, supra note 23; PRICE, Richard, “Detecting Ideas and Their Effects” in GOODIN, Robert E. and TILLY, Charles, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 252Google Scholar.

139. See e.g. Goldstein and Keohane, supra note 21; Price, supra note 7.

140. BOYLE, Alan and CHINKIN, Christine, The Making of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

141. Finnemore, supra note 14 at 701.

142. KOSKENNIEMI, Martti, “The Mystery of Legal Obligation” (2011) 3 International Theory 319CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143. Christian REUS-SMIT, “Politics and International Legal Obligation” (2003) 9 European Journal of International Relations 591 at 591.

144. I thank Andrew Hurrell for this observation.

145. Scharf and Williams, supra note 9.