Response to critics

The right to intervene militarily could be asserted in any situation where a legal right had been violated and all peaceful channels had been explored and exhausted. [...]the right of war existed not only in cases of self-defence, but to collect debts, to recover compensation for property damage and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Global Constitutionalism 2018-11, Vol.7 (3), p.374-382
Main Authors: HATHAWAY, OONA A, SHAPIRO, SCOTT J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
International law
National security
Presidents
Self defense
Sovereignty
Special Articles
Trump, Donald J
Wages & salaries
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The right to intervene militarily could be asserted in any situation where a legal right had been violated and all peaceful channels had been explored and exhausted. [...]the right of war existed not only in cases of self-defence, but to collect debts, to recover compensation for property damage and to resolve dynastic disputes and inheritance claims. [...]states not only had the right to wage war to enforce their rights but also to threaten to wage war – thereby sanctioning the behaviour that we now call ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Or they could have been motivated both by moral and prudential considerations. [...]when we ascribe causal efficacy to a change in the laws of war, we are not arguing that international law is directly guiding states. [...]of the outlawry of war, conquest was less likely, those who engaged in illegal aggression could be (and were) criminally prosecuted, economic sanctions became a central tool of statecraft, and treaties brought about through coercion were no longer enforceable. [...]World War I and the changes it brought about in the perception of war was not trivial – it was deeply consequential.
ISSN:2045-3817
2045-3825
DOI:10.1017/S2045381718000266