Order within Anarchy: The Laws of War as an International Institution
James D. Morrow
Language: English
Pages: 240
ISBN: 1107626773
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Order Within Anarchy focuses on how the laws of war create strategic expectations about how states and their soldiers will act during war, which can help produce restraint. International law as a political institution helps to create such expectations by specifying how violence should be limited and clarifying which actors should comply with those limits. The success of the laws of war depends on three related factors: compliance between warring states and between soldiers on the battlefield, and control of soldiers by their militaries. A statistical study of compliance of the laws of war during the twentieth century shows that joint ratification strengthens both compliance and reciprocity, compliance varies across issues with the scope for individual violations, and violations occur early in war. Close study of the treatment of prisoners of war during World Wars I and II demonstrates the difficulties posed by states' varied willingness to limit violence, a lack of clarity about what restraint means, and the practical problems of restraint on the battlefield.
Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few
Black's Law Dictionary (Concise 8th Edition)
The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It
From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument
Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court Is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges
The Legal Analyst: A Toolkit for Thinking about the Law
wrong targets, but they loom larger in strategic bombing. Broadly speaking, tactical bombing supports ground or naval forces by attacking enemy forces from the air, while strategic bombing aims at destroying targets behind the lines that support the troops at the front, such as transportation networks or factories producing war material. Planes conducting tactical missions can hit protected targets, such as hospitals or civilian sites near the front line. Their intent to identify and target enemy
stated four basic principles of the laws of war on the high seas: 1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished; 2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy’s flag; 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy (Treaty of Paris, 1856). These
deadly violence because the state sanctions that use. The limits on violence in war focus on protecting classes of people and property deemed to be out of combat; civilians, medical personnel, the wounded, prisoners of war, and cultural property. In turn, all of these protected classes are supposed to remain out of combat. All of these can lose their protected status if they fail to observe the limits of their status as protected persons and property. Perfidy, the abuse of protected status to
justifications of actions to others, as well as whether they follow it (Kratochwil 1989, 97). When others reject a justification, they see the action in question as a violation of a norm, and thus illegitimate. Legitimacy rests on shared understandings of what conduct is acceptable in concert with conduct that lives up to those norms. The laws of war allow actors to show that their use of force is restrained in compliance with the norms embodied in those laws and so meet a test of legitimacy in
understanding between states and the soldiers at war. Treaty ratification indicates that the ratifying state accepts the treaty standard. When both sides ratify the relevant treaty, they create the shared expectation that one another will comply up to the limits of their control. Violations are likely to be met with violations. Across cases, compliance under joint ratification should be higher than when one or both do not accept the standard through ratification. 3. When one side ratifies the
