国际法作为遮羞布：支持军事干预的英雄主义叙事的持续吸引力

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW London Review of International Law Pub Date : 2023-12-09 DOI:10.1093/lril/lrad019

Lynsey Mitchell

{"title":"国际法作为遮羞布：支持军事干预的英雄主义叙事的持续吸引力","authors":"Lynsey Mitchell","doi":"10.1093/lril/lrad019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political debates on the use of force draw on Manichean narratives which are legitimated by legalistic language. Overreliance on such narratives devalues international law as a safeguard against the illegal use of force, silences criticism that militarism is not the solution to international crises, and blurs legal and non-legal justifications for intervention.","PeriodicalId":43782,"journal":{"name":"London Review of International Law","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International law as shibboleth: the continued appeal of heroic narratives in support of military intervention\",\"authors\":\"Lynsey Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lril/lrad019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Political debates on the use of force draw on Manichean narratives which are legitimated by legalistic language. Overreliance on such narratives devalues international law as a safeguard against the illegal use of force, silences criticism that militarism is not the solution to international crises, and blurs legal and non-legal justifications for intervention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"London Review of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"London Review of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lril/lrad019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

关于使用武力的政治辩论借鉴了摩尼教的说法，而这些说法又被法律语言合法化。过度依赖这种说法会贬低国际法作为防止非法使用武力的保障的价值，压制关于军国主义不是解决国际危机的办法的批评，并模糊干预的法律和非法律理由。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

International law as shibboleth: the continued appeal of heroic narratives in support of military intervention

Political debates on the use of force draw on Manichean narratives which are legitimated by legalistic language. Overreliance on such narratives devalues international law as a safeguard against the illegal use of force, silences criticism that militarism is not the solution to international crises, and blurs legal and non-legal justifications for intervention.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

London Review of International Law LAW-

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量