Undoing the Legal Capacities of a Military Object: A Case Study on the (In)Visibility of Civilians

Martina Kolanoski
{"title":"Undoing the Legal Capacities of a Military Object: A Case Study on the (In)Visibility of Civilians","authors":"Martina Kolanoski","doi":"10.1111/lsi.12284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>International law dictates that actors in armed conflicts must distinguish between combatants and civilians. But how do legal actors assess the legality of a military operation after the fact? I analyze a civil proceeding for compensation by victims of a German-led airstrike in Afghanistan. The court treated military video as key evidence. I show how lawyers, judges, and expert witnesses categorized those involved by asking what a “military viewer” would make of the pictures. During the hearing, they avoided the categories of combatants/civilians; the military object resisted legal coding. I examine the decision in its procedural context, using ethnographic field notes and legal documents. I combine two ethnomethodological analytics: a trans-sequential approach and membership categorization analysis. I show the value of this combination for the sociological analysis of legal practice. I also propose that legal practitioners should use this approach to assess military viewing as a concerted, situated activity.</p>","PeriodicalId":47418,"journal":{"name":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lsi.12284","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Social Inquiry-Journal of the American Bar Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lsi.12284","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

International law dictates that actors in armed conflicts must distinguish between combatants and civilians. But how do legal actors assess the legality of a military operation after the fact? I analyze a civil proceeding for compensation by victims of a German-led airstrike in Afghanistan. The court treated military video as key evidence. I show how lawyers, judges, and expert witnesses categorized those involved by asking what a “military viewer” would make of the pictures. During the hearing, they avoided the categories of combatants/civilians; the military object resisted legal coding. I examine the decision in its procedural context, using ethnographic field notes and legal documents. I combine two ethnomethodological analytics: a trans-sequential approach and membership categorization analysis. I show the value of this combination for the sociological analysis of legal practice. I also propose that legal practitioners should use this approach to assess military viewing as a concerted, situated activity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解除军事物体的法律行为能力:以平民(In)可见性为例
国际法规定武装冲突中的行为者必须区分战斗人员和平民。但是,法律行为者如何在事后评估军事行动的合法性?我分析了德国领导的阿富汗空袭的受害者要求赔偿的民事诉讼。法庭将军事录像作为关键证据。我展示了律师、法官和专家证人是如何通过询问“军事观众”如何看待这些照片来对涉案人员进行分类的。在听证会上,他们避免使用战斗人员/平民的分类;军事目标抵制法律编码。我用人种学的现场笔记和法律文件,在程序上考察了这一决定。我结合了两种民族方法学分析:跨序列方法和成员分类分析。我展示了这种结合对于法律实践的社会学分析的价值。我还建议,法律从业人员应使用这种方法来评估军事观看作为一种协调一致的、有条件的活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Mercy and the Construction of Social Control: A Four-Site Analysis of Clemency Exclusion from Within: Noncitizens and the Rise of Discriminatory Licensing Laws Legal Strategies at the Governance Precipice: Transnational Lawyers in the European Union’s Sovereign Debt Crisis (2010–2012) Aspirational Laws in Action: A Field Experiment Many Shades of Success: Bottom-up Indicators of Individual Success in Community Courts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1