Response to critics

• 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
• ISSN: 2045-3817; 2045-3825
• DOI: 10.1017/S2045381718000266

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.