I wanted to call Oona Hathaway’s piece at Foreign Affairs, “War Unbound”, to your attention. It’s basically a lament for the abandoning of international law, using Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and Russia’s war against Ukraine as examples:
International humanitarian law, also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict, is supposed to spare civilians from the worst calamities of conflict. The aim of this body of law has always been clear: civilians not involved in the fighting deserve to be protected from harm and to enjoy unimpeded access to humanitarian aid. But in the Israel-Hamas war, the law has failed. Hamas continues to hold hostages and has used schools, hospitals, and other civilian buildings to shield its infrastructure, while Israel has waged an all-out war in densely populated areas and slowed the flow of desperately needed aid to a trickle. The result has been utter devastation for civilians in Gaza.
The conflict in Gaza is an extreme example of the breakdown of the law of war, but it is not an isolated one. It is the latest in a long series of wars in the years since 9/11, from the U.S.-led “war on terror” to the Syrian civil war to Russia’s war in Ukraine, that have chipped away at protections for civilians. From this grim record, it might be tempting to conclude that the humanitarian protections that governments worked so hard to enshrine in law after World War II hold little meaning today. Yet even a hobbled system of international humanitarian law has made conflict more humane. Indeed, for all the frequent transgressions, the existence of these legal protections has provided continuous pressure on belligerents to limit civilian casualties, provide safe zones for noncombatants, and allow for humanitarian access—knowing they will face international consequences when they do not.
None of my ensuing comments should be taken as taking one side or the other in either of those conflicts.
I would suggest to Ms. Hathaway that she read Ernest Gellner’s book, Plough, Sword, and Book. “International law” as exemplified by, say, the Geneva Accords, is a fine illustration of cultural bias. Like it or not those accords were arrived at by Western Europeans when Western European countries ruled most of the world.
To most of the rest of the world including (to use Samuel Huntington’s taxonomy) the Orthodox world, the Islamic world, and the Sinic or Confucian world, distinguishing between the military and civilians is meaningless noise. We only think that distinction has a meaning because there is a millennia-old basis for it in our Western culture. That is not the case for other cultures.
Contrary to its portrayal by many in the West, Israel’s is not a Western culture any more than the Palestinians’ is. Indeed, they are more alike in their practices than different. What’s amazing is that the Israelis have been as restrained as they have. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians are part of the Orthodox world.
If we are to be really serious about international law we must a) follow it ourselves (the U. S.’s reluctance to obey international law is the meat for another post) and b) reassert Western dominance over the rest of the world. I don’t believe we can be successful in such an effort. In other words we should get used to a world in which there is no international law or, possibly, no international standards of conduct for nations at all because that is likely to be the world we will be living in.
I think Israel alternately wants to be treated as Western country and a non_Western country when it benefits them.
Steve
The US has a long history going back to its colonial period of regarding enemy civilians as legitimate targets. Custer was hunting Indian women and children when he met his fate. In WW II we targeted German and Japanese civilians. And our Global War on Islam saw, and sees, weddings, funerals, birthdays as legitimate targets.
US hypocrisy knows no bounds. We are the Evil Empire, and we are the source of most of the violence and chaos in the world.
I see things a little differently. I don’t think that the U. S. is actually part of “the West”. Any more than Brazil or Mexico, countries we resemble more closely than we do Britain or France, do.
Jeffersonians and Wilsonians (pessimistic and optimistic idealists) believe in international law. Hamiltonians and Jacksonians (optimistic and pessimistic pragmatists), not so much. Note that our military is mostly Jacksonians with some Wilsonians in the officer corps. Historically
I don’t think IHL is law in the way people (mostly human rights NGOs and reporters that interview) think of law. The difficult issue here is that Hamas went to war with Israel in its Oct. 8 attacks, justifying retaliation by Israel on a small stretch of land with people and legitimate targets in urban areas. Historically civilians would evacuate the area of engatement, but Egypt is (still?) closing the border, and Palestinians are inclined by historical experience not to leave.
(I think there are more legal distinctions as to anglosphere countries with their emphasis on legal process and the need for international law to conform and occupy a space consistent with its democratic institutions.)
A little differently, the United States does not attack civilians of nations that have accepted rationally, these can be negotiated with.
But nations and peoples who are absolutists, zealots, who prefer death to life. Who glorify the death of their own youth in suicidal attacks, reject all forms of compromise, see Yasser Arafat, must perforce, be dealt with differently.
As to Custer, or Wounded Knee for that matter, you can categorize many events that occurred in the struggle for the continent, over a 250 year period, as genocide, both peoples deliberately killed civilians.
But negotiations, treaties, compromise, trade, intermarriages also occurred.
Native Americans were brave to a fault, by never Kamikaze or even unreasonable.
Complete elimination was always on the mind of some American leaders, especially Grant, but there was never any national consensus in favor of that or it would have happened.
A true believer, a zealot, will not negotiate in good faith because God is on their side.
They simply must be dealt with by overwhelming force.
The typical Jacksonian inclination is to treat “honorable” enemies with honor but with dishonorable ones there are no holds barred.
We certainly had no compunction about attacking civilians in our past. The phrase “from sea to shining sea” reflected our beliefs about Manifest Destiny and that we should control all the land in between. One suspects that the indigenous people didnt have good feelings about the sea to shining sea concept. As always, might makes right.
Steve
Might DOES make right. You might not like them but might gets results.
If the United States fell on truly hard times can you imagine Americans sacrificing anything for the well being of Natives on the reservations? I can’t.
“We certainly had no compunction about attacking civilians in our past. The phrase “from sea to shining sea” reflected our beliefs about Manifest Destiny and that we should control all the land in between.”
Do you enjoy being a dick, Steve? Perhaps you should move to Iran or Palestine where fairness in idyllic life permeates the air……
Is there any nation other than maybe some of Micronesia and San Marino that doesn’t have a history of ethic cleansing?
On another note, imposing western views is now seen as colonialism and must be replaced by indigenous values and ethics, according to factions with in the progressive movement. Would that apply to war crimes?
I think you’ll find that somebody lived where the city of San Marino is now. Their tradition is that they came from Sardinia. It’s as I’ve been saying: everybody is from somewhere else.
Regardless, I think we should avoid too cozy a relationship with countries for which ethnic cleansing is a key national interest.