Civility, Barbarism and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law Who do the Laws of War Protect?
Book contents
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sieges and the Laws of War in Europe’s Long Eighteenth Century
- 3 All’s Fair in Love and War or the Limits of the Limitations
- 4 Cultivating Humanitarianism
- 5 Limits to the Scope of Humanity as a Constraint on the Conduct of War
- 6 The State, Civility, and International Humanitarian Law
- 7 Operationalising Distinction in South Sudan
- 8 Private Military and Security Companies and International Humanitarian Law
- 9 Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering
- 10 Blurring the Lines
- 11 A Step Back to Take a Step Forward
- Index
- References
6 - The State, Civility, and International Humanitarian Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2024
Book contents
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sieges and the Laws of War in Europe’s Long Eighteenth Century
- 3 All’s Fair in Love and War or the Limits of the Limitations
- 4 Cultivating Humanitarianism
- 5 Limits to the Scope of Humanity as a Constraint on the Conduct of War
- 6 The State, Civility, and International Humanitarian Law
- 7 Operationalising Distinction in South Sudan
- 8 Private Military and Security Companies and International Humanitarian Law
- 9 Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering
- 10 Blurring the Lines
- 11 A Step Back to Take a Step Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 6 has three interrelated aims. First, to identify the relationship between the modern nation-state, international humanitarian law (IHL), and notions of civility; second, through a historical exploration of the relationship between military necessity, proportionality, and discrimination in IHL, to make the argument that the claimed shift from sovereignty to humanitarianism is not as complete as often argued, and that rather, raison d’état continues to be a motivating factor informing constraint during combat; and third, through an exploration of ‘the standard of civilisation’, to identify how this relationship informs discord between the universal underpinnings of contemporary IHL, and ongoing violations of the law. The chapter concludes by proposing that the oft-maligned concept of a ‘standard of civilisation’ remains valuable in exploring continuities of double standards as they relate to protections afforded by the modern laws of war.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Civility, Barbarism and the Evolution of International Humanitarian LawWho do the Laws of War Protect?, pp. 111 - 134Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Alexander, A. (2015). A short history of international humanitarian law. The European Journal of International Law 26(1), 109–38.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D., Farrell, T. and Lambert, H. (2012). International Law and International Relations, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, B. (2005). The colonial origins of international law: European expansion and the classical standard of civilisation. Journal of the History of International Law 7, 1–24.Google Scholar
Buzan, B. (2014). The standard of civilisation as an English school concept. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42(3), 576–94.Google Scholar
Buzbee, S. (2019). Trump undercuts his military leadership – and dishonors troops who uphold our values. The Washington Post, 24 November 2019 (online).Google Scholar
Cassese, A. (1979). A tentative appraisal of the old and the new humanitarian law of armed conflict. In Cassese, A., ed., The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Naples: Editoriale Scientifica.Google Scholar
Cassese, A. (2014). Current challenges to international humanitarian law. In Clapham, A. and Gaeta, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, E. (2018). The enduring legacy of the St Petersburg Declaration: Distinction, military necessity, and the prohibition of causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury in IHL. Journal of the History of International Law 20, 543–66.Google Scholar
Cross, M. (2018). Humanity. In Djukic, D. and Pons, N., eds., The Companion to International Humanitarian Law, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Crowe, J. and Western-Scheuber, K. (2013). Principles of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Dill, J. and Shue, H. (2012). Limiting the killing in war: Military necessity and the St. Petersburg assumption. Ethics & International Affairs 26(3), 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinstein, Y. (2004). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y. (2015). Military necessity. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law (online).Google Scholar
Fidler, D. (2000). A kinder, gentler system of capitulations? International law, structural adjustment policies, and the standard of liberal, globalised civilisation. Texas International Law Review 35(3), 388–89.Google Scholar
Fleck, D. (2021). Historical development and legal basis. In Fleck, D., ed., The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardam, J. and Jarvis, M. (2001). Women, Armed Conflict and International Law, The Hague: Brill.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, M. (2018). Proportionality. In Djukic, D. and Pons, N., eds., The Companion to International Humanitarian Law, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gong, G. (1984). The Standard of Civilisation in International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grotius, H. (1995). De Jure Belli Ac Pacis, vol. 2, Francis W. Kelset (trans.), Buffalo, NY: William Hein.Google Scholar
Hayashi, N. (2016). Basic principles. In McCormack, T. and Liivoja, R., eds., Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heinsch, R. (2018). Distinction. In Djukic, D. and Pons, N., eds., The Companion to International Humanitarian Law, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (1987a). Commentary of 1987 Basic Rule, para. 1863.Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (1987b). Commentary of 1987 Protection of the Civilian Population, para. 1863.Google Scholar
International Court of Justice (1996). Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Rep., p. 263.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. (2000). Maintaining the protection of non-combatants. Journal of Peace Research 37(4), 421–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Killingsworth, M. (2016). From St Petersburg to Rome: Understanding the evolution of the modern laws of war. Australian Journal of Politics and History 62(1), 100–15.Google Scholar
Kolb, R. (2013). The main epochs of modern international humanitarian law since 1864 and their related dominant legal constructions. In Mujezinović Larsen, K., Guldahl Cooper, C. and Nystuen, G., eds., Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2001). The Gentler Civiliser of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870–1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2009). The legacy of the nineteenth century. In Armstrong, D., ed., Routledge Handbook of International Law, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Linklater, A. (2016). Violence and Civilisation in the Western States-Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDougall, C. and Bachelard, M. (2019). Shining the spotlight: Why we reported that Ben Roberts-Smith was under investigation. The Age, 27 September 2019 (online).Google Scholar
Meyer, M. A. and McCoubrey, H., eds. (1998). Reflections on Law and Armed Conflicts. The Selected Works on the Laws of War by the late Professor Colonel G.I.A.D. Draper, OBE, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v U.S.), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, 14, 27 June 1986.Google Scholar
Neff, S. (2005). War and the Law of Nations: A General History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Obregon, L. (2012). The civilised and uncivilised. In Fassbender, B. and Peters, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philipps, D. (2019). Navy SEAL Chief accused of war crimes is found not guilty of murder. New York Times, 2 July 2019 (online).Google Scholar
Philipps, D., Baker, P., Haberman, M. and Cooper, H. (2019). Trump’s intervention in SEALs case tests Pentagon’s tolerance. New York Times, 30 November 2019 (online).Google Scholar
Pothelet, E. (2018). Geneva Conventions. In Djukic, D. and Pons, N., eds., The Companion to International Humanitarian Law, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Protocol Additional (I) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3 (Additional Protocol I).Google Scholar
Protocol Additional (II) to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 609 (Additional Protocol II).Google Scholar
Roberts, A. (1994). Land Warfare: From Hague to Nuremberg. In Howard, M., Andreopoulas, G., and Shulman, M., eds., The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. V. P. (2000). Zero casualty warfare. International Review of the Red Cross 837, 165–81.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sassòli, M., Bouvier, A. and Quintin, A. (2014). How Does Law Protect in War? International Committee of the Red Cross, available online at https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/distinction.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. (2010). Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: Preserving the delicate balance. Virginia Journal of International Law 50(4), 796–839.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, G. (1955). The standard of civilisation in international law. Current Legal Problems 8(1), 212–34.Google Scholar
Solis, G. (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight (2000). In Roberts, A. and Guelff, R., eds., Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sylvest, C. (2005). International law in nineteenth-century Britain. British Yearbook of International Law 75, 9–70.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. (1994). Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tilly, C. (1992). Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–1992, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turns, D. (2010). The law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law). In Evans, M., ed., International Law, 4th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Defence (2004). The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations (1998). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, available at www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/documents/rs-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
United States v List (‘The Hostage Case’), Case No.7 (19 February 1948), reprinted in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremburg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No.10, p. 1230.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. (2014). The standard of civilisation redux: Towards the expansion on international society 3.0?. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42(3), 674–96.Google Scholar