As the standards set by the laws of war rose, states were increasingly engaged in legal gymnastics to limit their obligation to comply.Īt the same time, as a scholar of sovereignty, I observed secessionist groups in Mexico, Indonesia, and Western Sahara plead with the international community for recognition. But as I expanded my scope temporally and geographically, I realized that these kinds of decisions were not limited to the United States. As events unfolded and, in particular, as the infamous torture memos came to light, along with then-attorney general Alberto Gonzales’s dismissive tone regarding the 1949 Geneva Conventions, I was even more puzzled. As a newly minted postdoctoral scholar, I observed from afar as US troops deployed to Afghanistan and wondered: why did the United States not declare war? If there was ever a clear-cut case to do so, this seemed to be it. I began this project over a decade ago, in the shadow of September 11, 2001. Declarations of Independence in Civil Wars Compliance with the Laws of War in Interstate WarĦ. International Recognition, Compliance Costs, and the Formalities of WarĤ. The Proliferation and Codification of the Laws of WarĢ. FAZALįor my parents, Maydene and Abul CONTENTSġ.
WARS OF LAW Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict TANISHA M. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years.įazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws.
0 kommentar(er)
