What's in a War? (Politics as War,War as Politics)

Abstract. This paper combines reflections on the current “state of war” in the Middle East with an epistemological discussion of the meaning and implications of the category “war” itself, in order to dissipate the confusions arising from the idea of a “War on Terror.” The first part illustrates the insufficiency of the ideal type involved in dichotomies which are implicit in the naming and classifications of wars. They point nevertheless to a deeper problem which concerns the antinomic character of a collective institution of violence. The second part discusses the extent to which, in spite of the historical transformations in the means and political objectives of wars, the contemporary confrontation still obeys the rules of warfare described by Clausewitz, particularly with respect to temporality (“friction”). The third part discusses “non‐clausewitzian” aspects of the “new wars” defined by Martin Van Creveld and Mary Kaldor, while suggesting that they have left aside the most salient contradiction illustrated by the US interventions, which results from the combination of a claim to universal sovereignty and a reduction of war to generalized police operations.     

War,crime, empire and cosmopolitanism

The millions of deaths produced by states and governments make the 20th century ‘unnameable’, a century far more lethal than all previous ‘pre-civil’ epochs. It does not appear that contemporary state violence tends to decline or to temper the brutality commonly attributed to archaic armies, nor that the rules and limitations internationally imposed on that violence, throughout the last decades, have reduced its effects. The 20th century having gone, and while hope was growing that mass murder and destruction would also go with it, recent events appear to suggest that the twenty-first century is poised to become unnameable in its turn. In this paper a reflection is presented of the notion of war as annihilation, which emerges in contemporary international conflicts. This is followed by a review of the debate on the relationship between war, empire and crime. As a logical extension of the argument developed, war is described as a particularly devastating form of crime of the powerful. Finally, reflecting on the concept of ‘cosmopolitanism’, the discussion suggests that such a concept may offer legitimacy to those who invest their enthusiasm in supporting contemporary wars as well as to those who fight against them. The latter may find inspiration in the idea of a ‘critical’ cosmopolitanism.     

Complicity,Collectives, and Killing in War*

Recent work on the ethics of war has struggled to simultaneously justify two central tenets of international law: the Permission to kill enemy combatants, and the Prohibition on targeting enemy noncombatants. Recently, just war theorists have turned to collectivist considerations as a way out of this problem. In this paper, I reject the argument that all and only unjust combatants are liable to be killed in virtue of their complicity in the wrongful war fought by their side, and that noncombatants are not permissible targets because they are not complicit. I then argue that just combatants have some reason to direct force against unjust combatants rather than unjust noncombatants, because they should respect the reasonable self-determining decisions of other political communities, when those communities settle on the distribution of a negative surplus of cost for which they are collectively but not individually responsible. These collectivist reasons will not fully justify the Permission and the Prohibition, but they can contribute to that justification.     

On War,Peace and Armed Conflicts

In general, the relationship between rule and conduct is dominated by the concept of linear causality: the legal rule causes effect in social practice. The case study on Article 96 of the Dutch Constitution (democratic procedures for the war declaration) and Article 102 of the Dutch Penal Code (the offence: aiding the enemy in war time) makes clear that this concept is too simplistic for the complex processes that took place. The clear dividing point between war and peace — i.e., the war declaration that initiates the legal state of war — no longer exists, since a third category —'armed conflicts' — that was 'constituted' in social practice and is positioned 'somewhere' between peace and war. Exact demarcation for this category is problematic. This phenomenon has far-reaching consequences for the meaning of the Articles, mentioned above.     

Authority,Self-Determination,and Community in Cosmopolitan War

This paper examines Cécile Fabre’s cosmopolitan reductionist approach to war. It makes three main points. First, I show that Fabre must ‘thin down’ justice’s content in order to justify the cosmopolitan claim that the same rights and duties bind people everywhere. Second, I investigate Fabre’s account of the values at stake in national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Can cosmopolitanism explain why it is permissible to fight in defense of one’s political community? I doubt it. I argue that Fabre’s reductionist approach cannot justify national self-defense in many cases. Finally, I explore the role that authoritative institutions play in specifying the rights and duties we have under cosmopolitan justice. I believe Fabre takes an overly simple view of the relationship between rights, duties, and authoritative institutions. A more complex account may leave less space for private war on the part of individuals than she does.     

It's War, Jim, But Not As We Know It: A ``Reality-Check' for International Laws of War?

International Humanitarian Laws of Armed Conflict effectively prohibit the use of terror-violence as a means or method of warfare in all circumstances of armed conflict. However, as new ``terrorist' enemies do not appear to share this humanitarian consensus, it becomes crucial to contextualise accurately any characterisation of the recent ``war' on ``global terror' as a ``war' to which International Humanitarian Law can attach. What needs to be remembered, first, is that technological innovation can destabilise accepted frameworks for waging war. Thus, any laws intended to curtail the use of particular means and methods of warfare will reflect the contemporaneous environment within which such laws were formulated. Secondly, modern laws of war evolved from nineteenth century reciprocal pacts designed to ensure minimal levels of restraint between ``civilised' peoples. While any strict contractual approach to mutuality-in-restraint has been superceded in the post-1945 era by more universalised obligations, the interests reflected in this original mutuality of interest warrant examination when distinguishing today between ``justifiable' and ``unjustifiable', or ``licit' and ``illicit', uses of violence.     

Self-Defense, Punishing Unjust Combatants and Justice in War

Some contemporary Just War theorists, like Jeff McMahan, have recently built upon an individual right of self-defense to articulate moral rules of war that are at odds with commonly accepted views. For instance, they argue that in principle combatants who fight on the unjust side ought to be liable to punishment on that basis alone. Also, they reject the conclusion that combatants fighting on both sides are morally equal. In this paper, I argue that these theorists overextend their self-defense analysis when it comes to the punishment of unjust combatants, and I show how in an important sense just and unjust combatants are morally equal. I contend that the individualistic and quid pro quo perspective of the self-defense analysis fails to consider properly how the international community, morally speaking, ought to treat combatants, and I set forth four elements of justice applicable to war, which, together, support the conclusion that in principle the international community should not take on the activity of punishing combatants solely for fighting on the unjust side.     

Rights,Justice and War: A Reply*

I offer a response to Rodin’s, Statman’s, Stilz’s, and Tadros’ papers on my book Cosmopolitan War.     

Masculinities,Money, and Mosques in Algeria’s Civil War

To what extent did economic marginalization and political crisis activate prejudice, violence, and religious faith in Algeria’s civil war during the 1990s? The Algerian novel Les Agneaux du Seigneur (In the Name of God), by Yasmina Khadra offers a glimpse. The novel shows how political and economic disparities intertwined with an increasingly strict interpretation of Islam. In turn, Islam’s political applications and its militarized enforcement soon drew the country into a veritable civil war. The resulting breakdown of the cultural order simultaneously increased the pressure on men to fulfill a socially prescribed gender role and made the fulfillment of that role more difficult.     

Neither War Nor Peace,But Disband the CCU!

Politicians may amuse themselves however they please, but do not touch the Fundamental Law. After all, it is not as hard to rectify what is wrong as it is to avoid excessive noise when doing it. Agreeing that the constitution was changed in 2004 with procedural violations, the people's deputies are now furiously discussing ways to go back to the past. The "regionals" [Party of Regions members] are advising us not to make a tragedy of this. The opposition is calling on the guarantor and the Constitutional Court to reject the automatic restoration of the 1996 Constitution.     

The illicit arms trade: Cold War and Post-Cold War

This article considers the principal changes that haveoccurred in the illicit arms trade across the Cold Warand post-Cold War periods. It discusses the changednature of demand and the sources and means ofillicitly supplying arms to areas of conflict. Througha number of case studies it highlights the declininguse of illicit arms supply as a foreign policy tool,and the extent to which involvement in the trade isnow determined more by profit than policyconsiderations, with all the implications thesechanges have for control initiatives.     

The United Nations,the United States,and the War on Terrorism

Since the moment the United Nations was created, the Americans have had certain expectations of it, which logically follow from their past.     

Belgium's Anti-Sect War

Since the suicide—homicide of 53 members of the Order of the Solar Temple in 1994 and the gas attempt by Aum Shinrikyo in Tokyo's subway in 1995, a number of European states have decided to fight against sects. France and Belgium are in the forefront of this battle. Both countries have set up official observatories of sects and state agencies involving various ministries to combat them. Preventive policies targeting sects are being carried out. In Belgium, the Anthroposophic Society, a philosophical movement listed as 1 of 189 sects suspected of being dangerous, has sued one federal entity that printed unfounded accusations against their movement in a widely distributed brochure against sects. The same Anthoposophic Society has also petitioned the Court of Arbitration to have the law establishing an observatory of sects annuled. This report deals with both legal actions.