"This book provides an analysis of how penal discourses are used to legitimate post-Cold-War military interventions through three main case studies: Kosovo, Iraq and Libya. These cases reveal the operation of diverse modalities of punishment in extending the ambit of international liberal governance. The argument starts from an analysis of these discourses to trace the historical arc in which military interventions have increasingly been launched through reference to both the human rights discourse and humanitarian sentiments, and a desire to punish the perpetrators. The book continues with the analysis of practices involved in the post-intervention phase, looking at the ways in which states have been established as modes of governance (Kosovo), how punitive atmospheres have animated soldiers' violence in the conduct of war (Iraq), and finally how interventions can expand moral control and a system of devolved surveillance in conjunction with both border control and the engagement of the International Criminal Court (Libya). In all these case, tensions and ambiguities emerge. These practices underscore how punitive intents were also present in the expansion of liberal governance, demonstrating how the rhetoric of punishment was useful in legitimating Western state powers and recomposing the borders of the liberal world at the periphery. War as Protection and Punishment ends with a number of critical comments on the diffusion of the punitive discourse in the international arena, considering how issues of crime and justice have also animated, at least in part, the current engagement with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An accessible and compelling read, this book will appeal to students and scholars of criminology, sociology, politics and those interested in how penal discourses are used to legitimise military conventions"--

This book offers a critical appraisal of the international legal idea of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’. The idea that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations at risk has become the prominent mode and structure of address in response to mass human atrocities, gross human rights violations, and large-scale loss of life. Although the "international community" of liberal international law and of legal cosmopolitanism for the most part projects a self-assured collective project, this book maintains that it transforms global ethical responsibility into a project of governance, management, and control. Pursuing this argument, and drawing on critical legal literature, critical international relations and on ideas of responsibility and ethical relationality in the work of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, the book develops a concept of "irresponsibility". This concept is then juxtaposed to the dominant Responsibility to Protect discourse. By exposing and acknowledging "the sites of irresponsibility" of the Responsibility to Protect, the book argues that irresponsibility itself can become the condition of ethical responsibility and the possibility of justice. This original approach to an increasingly important topic will prove invaluable to those working in international law, international relations, politics and legal theory.

No detailed description available for "International Conventions on Protection of Humanity and Environment".

This volume collects articles on the law of armed conflict and the use of force from the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, to facilitate easy access to content from the leading reference work in international law.

The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) has a special standing in international law and international politics. For 60 years, the crime of genocide has been recognised as the most horrendous crime in international law, famously designated the 'crime of crimes'. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of its adoption the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that 'genocide is the ultimate form of discrimination'. In the same context the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court described the Genocide Convention as a 'visionary and founding text for the Court'. The Convention has as such influenced the subsequent development of many different areas of international law. For example, the 1951 Advisory Opinion on the Genocide Convention enabled the International Court of Justice to shape the modern regime of reservations to treaties. More recently, the prohibition against genocide has become a crucial pillar of the regime of international criminal law developing since the 1990s, with genocide being one of the core crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the UN ad hoc tribunals, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the permanent International Criminal Court.In this work the 19 provisions of the Convention are analysed article-by-article, with abundant references to state practice and case law.

Necessity and proportionality hold a firm place in the international law governing the use of force by states, as well as in the law of armed conflict. However, the precise contours of these two requirements are uncertain and controversial. The aim of Necessity and Proportionality in International Peace and Security Law is to explore how necessity and proportionality manifest themselves in the modern world under the law governing the use of force and the law of armed conflict, and how they relate to each other. The book explores the ways in which necessity and proportionality are applied in practice and addresses pressing legal issues in the law on the use of force, including the controversial "unwilling and unable" test for the use of force in self-defense, drones and targeted killing, the application of this legal regime during civil war, and the need for further transparency in states' justification for the use of force in self-defense. The analysis of the role of military necessity within the law of armed conflict on the modern battlefield focuses on the history and nature of the principle of military necessity, the proper application of the principle of proportionality, how commanders should account for mental harm in calculating proportionality, and the role artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems may play in proportionality analysis. The book concludes with a discussion of the potential role of proportionality in the law governing post-conflict contexts.

Security Studies is the most comprehensive textbook available on security studies. It gives students a detailed overview of the major theoretical approaches, key themes and most significant issues within security studies. Part 1 explores the main theoretical approaches currently used within the field from realism to international political sociology. Part 2 explains the central concepts underpinning contemporary debates from the security dilemma to terrorism. Part 3 presents an overview of the institutional security architecture currently influencing world politics using international, regional and global levels of analysis. Part 4 examines some of the key contemporary challenges to global security from the arms trade to energy security. Part 5 discusses the future of security. Security Studies provides a valuable teaching tool for undergraduates and MA students by collecting these related strands of the field together into a single coherent textbook.

According to democratic theory the state is for man not man for the state. This theory has been implemented by bills of rights in many national constitutions giving the individual a legal opportunity to redress abuses by his state. In Federal Consti tutions, however, difficulties have been faced when central au thority seeks to enforce the standards of the constitution against the legislation and customs of the constituent states. The latter habitually resist, proclaiming the virtues of horne rule and local self-govemment, also supported by democratic theory. Thus the opposition of man versus the state develops into a double op position of man versus the state and the state versus the super state. To what extent should the super-state take the part of man demanding respect for human rights, or of the state demand ing self-govemment, when the two conflict? The failure to solve this problem precipitated the American Civil War and continues to agitate American politics. Should the human right of equal educational opportunities prevail over the "State's Right" of autonomy in the organization of its schools? The same problem appears in more virulent form in the efforts of the United Nations to "promote respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion" without "intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.