国际人道主义法:必要性、区别与“文明标准”

M. Killingsworth
{"title":"国际人道主义法:必要性、区别与“文明标准”","authors":"M. Killingsworth","doi":"10.1163/18781527-bja10062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe modern laws of war are an integral foundation of 19th century efforts to establish and maintain order within the then emerging international society of states. But membership was conditional; only ‘civilised’ states were permitted entry to international society. Engaging with the concept of ‘the standard of civilisation’, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate a continuity of double standards as they relate to protections afforded by the modern laws of war. It will argue that these double standards have been, and continue to be, underpinned by attempts to de-humanise belligerents via the language of the ‘standard of civilisation’. In making this argument, the paper will draw attention to the historical centrality of the state and the role it has played in establishing conditionality with regards to protections afforded by the modern laws of war through the language of raison d’état and the standard of civilisation.","PeriodicalId":41905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Humanitarian Law: Necessity, Distinction and the ‘Standard of Civilisation’\",\"authors\":\"M. Killingsworth\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18781527-bja10062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe modern laws of war are an integral foundation of 19th century efforts to establish and maintain order within the then emerging international society of states. But membership was conditional; only ‘civilised’ states were permitted entry to international society. Engaging with the concept of ‘the standard of civilisation’, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate a continuity of double standards as they relate to protections afforded by the modern laws of war. It will argue that these double standards have been, and continue to be, underpinned by attempts to de-humanise belligerents via the language of the ‘standard of civilisation’. In making this argument, the paper will draw attention to the historical centrality of the state and the role it has played in establishing conditionality with regards to protections afforded by the modern laws of war through the language of raison d’état and the standard of civilisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-bja10062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代战争法是19世纪在当时新兴的国际国家社会中建立和维护秩序的不可或缺的基础。但加入是有条件的;只有“文明”国家才被允许进入国际社会。根据“文明标准”的概念,本文的目的是证明双重标准的连续性,因为它们与现代战争法提供的保护有关。它将辩称,这些双重标准一直是,并将继续是,通过“文明标准”的语言使交战方去人性化的企图所支撑的。在提出这一论点时,本文将提请人们注意国家的历史中心地位,以及它在通过存在论和文明标准确立现代战争法所提供保护的条件方面所发挥的作用。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
International Humanitarian Law: Necessity, Distinction and the ‘Standard of Civilisation’
The modern laws of war are an integral foundation of 19th century efforts to establish and maintain order within the then emerging international society of states. But membership was conditional; only ‘civilised’ states were permitted entry to international society. Engaging with the concept of ‘the standard of civilisation’, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate a continuity of double standards as they relate to protections afforded by the modern laws of war. It will argue that these double standards have been, and continue to be, underpinned by attempts to de-humanise belligerents via the language of the ‘standard of civilisation’. In making this argument, the paper will draw attention to the historical centrality of the state and the role it has played in establishing conditionality with regards to protections afforded by the modern laws of war through the language of raison d’état and the standard of civilisation.
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies is a peer reviewed journal aimed at promoting the rule of law in humanitarian emergency situations and, in particular, the protection and assistance afforded to persons in the event of armed conflicts and natural disasters in all phases and facets under international law. The Journal welcomes submissions in the areas of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international refugee law and international law relating to disaster response. In addition, other areas of law can be identified including, but not limited to the norms regulating the prevention of humanitarian emergency situations, the law concerning internally displaced persons, arms control and disarmament law, legal issues relating to human security, and the implementation and enforcement of humanitarian norms. The Journal´s objective is to further the understanding of these legal areas in their own right as well as in their interplay. The Journal encourages writing beyond the theoretical level taking into account the practical implications from the perspective of those who are or may be affected by humanitarian emergency situations. The Journal aims at and seeks the perspective of academics, government and organisation officials, military lawyers, practitioners working in the humanitarian (legal) field, as well as students and other individuals interested therein.
期刊最新文献
Lessons from the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: The Plight of Diaspora Fighters in Levées en Masse Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War Environmental Protections During Armed Conflict as Supportive Mechanisms for the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes Safeguarding the Vulnerable: A Comprehensive Approach to Protecting Detainees in Contemporary Non-International Armed Conflicts and Counterterrorism Operations Demokratia: Will the Greek Ideal Work in Greece’s Favour to Return the Parthenon Marbles under International Law?
×
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