“Non-Recognition of the Law Does Not Invalidate It”: The Status of BLA and Provisional IRA Prisoners

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHNIC STUDIES Souls Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1080/10999949.2022.2104602
W. Churchill
{"title":"“Non-Recognition of the Law Does Not Invalidate It”: The Status of BLA and Provisional IRA Prisoners","authors":"W. Churchill","doi":"10.1080/10999949.2022.2104602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mutulu Shakur and other incarcerated Black revolutionaries have insisted that the United States government has an obligation under international law to treat them as prisoners of war. This position particularly applies to captured militants of the New Afrikan independence movement. In this context the U.S. has responded that PoW status does not apply to those engaged in wars of national liberation. This essay challenges that assertion with a close look at how the British treated captured members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. It begins by introducing Shakur’s claims to PoW status and the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. After briefly summarizing centuries of Irish resistance to British colonization, it provides a detailed look at “the Troubles,” a period beginning in the late 1960s, when armed opposition to the occupation of Northern Ireland intensified and was met by British campaigns of “pacification.” In this period Irish prisoners—like their counterparts in the Black liberation movement—insisted on being treated as prisoners of war. As a result, the British authorities placed IRA prisoners in a “Special Category” that, for all practical purposes, amounted to PoW status under international law. Thus, the essay concludes, British policies with respect to the IRA undermine the United States’ contemporaneous claims that there was no precedent for treating Mutulu Shakur as a prisoner of war.","PeriodicalId":44850,"journal":{"name":"Souls","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Souls","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10999949.2022.2104602","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Mutulu Shakur and other incarcerated Black revolutionaries have insisted that the United States government has an obligation under international law to treat them as prisoners of war. This position particularly applies to captured militants of the New Afrikan independence movement. In this context the U.S. has responded that PoW status does not apply to those engaged in wars of national liberation. This essay challenges that assertion with a close look at how the British treated captured members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army. It begins by introducing Shakur’s claims to PoW status and the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. After briefly summarizing centuries of Irish resistance to British colonization, it provides a detailed look at “the Troubles,” a period beginning in the late 1960s, when armed opposition to the occupation of Northern Ireland intensified and was met by British campaigns of “pacification.” In this period Irish prisoners—like their counterparts in the Black liberation movement—insisted on being treated as prisoners of war. As a result, the British authorities placed IRA prisoners in a “Special Category” that, for all practical purposes, amounted to PoW status under international law. Thus, the essay concludes, British policies with respect to the IRA undermine the United States’ contemporaneous claims that there was no precedent for treating Mutulu Shakur as a prisoner of war.
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
“不承认法律并不使其无效”:BLA和临时爱尔兰共和军囚犯的地位
穆图鲁·沙库尔和其他被监禁的黑人革命者坚持认为,根据国际法,美国政府有义务将他们视为战俘。这一立场尤其适用于被俘的新非洲独立运动武装分子。在这种情况下,美国回应称,PoW身份不适用于那些参与民族解放战争的人。这篇文章通过仔细观察英国人如何对待被俘的临时爱尔兰共和军成员来挑战这一说法。它首先介绍了沙库尔对PoW地位的主张以及《日内瓦公约》的相关规定。在简要总结了几个世纪以来爱尔兰对英国殖民的抵抗之后,它详细介绍了“麻烦”,这一时期始于20世纪60年代末,当时对占领北爱尔兰的武装反对愈演愈烈,并遭到了英国的“安抚”运动的抵制。“在这一时期,爱尔兰囚犯——就像黑人解放运动中的囚犯一样——坚持被当作战俘对待。因此,英国当局将爱尔兰共和军囚犯列入“特殊类别”,出于所有实际目的,该类别相当于国际法规定的战俘地位。因此,文章得出结论,英国对爱尔兰共和军的政策破坏了美国当时的主张,即没有将穆图鲁·沙库尔视为战俘的先例。
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
Souls
Souls ETHNIC STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Black Construction of Colonialism: The Black Marxist Response to Fascism in the 1930s “Shame Upon the Guilty City”: Riots and White Rage in the American Past and Present The Burning House: Revolution and Black Art The Struggle for International Political Recognition for New Afrikan/Black Freedom Fighters To My Son Tupac
×
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