reader Ð Of War and Law ´ Hardcover read â danpashley

epub Of War and Law

reader Ð Of War and Law ´ Hardcover read â danpashley Ú ➮ [Read] ➪ Of War and Law By David Kennedy ➺ – Danpashley.co.uk Modern war is law pursued by other means Once a bit player in military conflict law now shapes the institutional logistical and physical landscape of war At tTory of modern war and statecraft as a tale of the changing role of law and the dramatic growth of law's power Not only a restraint and an ethical yardstick law can also be a weapon a strategic partner a force multiplier and an excuse for terrifying violence Kennedy focuses on what can go wrong when humanitarian and military planners speak the same legal language wrong for humanitarianism and wrong for warfare He argues that law has This book was disappointing on many levels First it was not well written Professor Kennedy is a well respected highly capable legal scholar However the text was a slog to get through His thesis was less than clear I was uncertain where he was going until the last 15 pages or so On top of this I found his arguments to be surprisingly under informed He was uite correct in his observations regarding how law has moved into prominence in conflict and in particular military decision making; but after composing his algorithm he reached all of the wrong conclusions It would have done Professor Kennedy well to speak with some military professionals and judge advocates before he cast them as shallow characters in his representation of the world I have to admit that I thought this book was recent when I started Knowing that it was written during the Ira War makes a little sense to me in digesting some of his positions That said I can only relate that I was terribly disappointed in this book

epub ð Of War and Law ð David Kennedy

Modern war is law pursued by other means Once a bit player in military conflict law now shapes the institutional logistical and physical landscape of war At the same time law has become a political and ethical vocabulary for marking legitimate power and justifiable death As a result the battlespace is as legally regulated as the rest of modern life In Of War and Law David Kennedy examines this important development retelling the his Law’s WarIn Of War and Law David Kennedy follows his critiue of the legalistic human rights regime in The Dark Side of Virtue with a critiue of the legalistic just war doctrine Whereas the earlier book posited that the hegemonic human rights discourse brings with it a “dark side”—which backgrounds important structures and power relations that subjugate the very rights holders it purports to defend—the later argues that the hegemony of legal discourse regarding war and politics carries its own dangers But unlike Michael Walzer Kennedy does not suggest that a universal “moral language” a timeless universalism might be uncovered beneath the historicized contingent situated discourses Moreover for Kennedy as for Foucault power is non sovereign diffuse socially constituted as is the state although it relies on a Weberian ratio legalistic bureaucracy of “legitimate authority”For Kennedy law and war have become continuous not only because “to use law is to invoke violence” via its ability to command the force of the state but also because “to use violence is to invoke the law” since law has come to govern every aspect of war The military is not only professionalized and rationalized but also operates according to texts of international conventions and explicit legal interpretations George W Bush did not simply instruct his subordinates to conduct “enhanced interrogation” he had expert counsel create memos on the legality of such techniues according to his interpretation of international law The existence of these memos are compelling evidence of the importance if not effectiveness of legal discourseSimilarly those opposed to “torture” techniues employed legal language to critiue them as did opponents of the Second Ira War Many if not most of the millions who marched against the war before it began decried it as “illegal” Moreover human rights activists and attorneys employ law to condemn the violations and atrocities they seek to end or avenge Even enemies in contemporary conflicts nearly always employ the “common legal vocabulary” of the law of warOn the other hand Kennedy continues these bureaucracies within government private contractors the legal profession civil society have inertias of their own The “global elite” who come to an “expert consensus” on what wars are necessary or “humanitarian” are often products of these inertias tendencies and vocabularies He posits that once a certain discourse about Ira and its WMDs began war became bureaucratically inevitable regardless of Irai action The “delicate partnership of war and law” arises out of the fact that even as the law of war restrains at least in theory when and how states can use force against others it facilitates acts of war when they meet broad conditions such as self defense collateral damage or necessity And it absolves everyone from the responsibility of acts of violence falling within the normal conduct of hostilities except the statesman who decided to begin the war When a “bad apple” is prosecuted for excesses it serves to legitimate all other terrible acts and the conseuences of hostilitiesThe central issue for Kennedy is law’s uncanny ability to help us avoid responsibility “The transformation of the law in war into a vocabulary of persuasion about legitimacy can erode the sense of professional and ethical responsibility for our decisions—as humanitarians or military professionals” 141 He illustrates with a legalistic evaluation of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki It is uite easy to make an argument using the law of war just war language to say that it was a just cause proportional and necessary; therefore legitimate or at least a close callKennedy a human rights attorney summarizes his critiue “In the face of the irrationality of war modern law has built an elaborate discourse of evasion offering at once the experience of safe ethical distance and careful pragmatic assessment while parceling out responsibility attributing it denying it—even sometimes embracing it—as a tactic of statecraft and war rather than as a personal experience of ethical jeopardy” 167 But as a remedy he proposes rather than a “moral discourse” like Walzer the individual taking of responsibility in a tone evocative of Weber’s lecture “Politics as Vocation” Rather than abandoning reforming or attempting to step out of the hegemonic legal discourse Kennedy suggests “The challenge for all of us is to re capture the freedom and the responsibility of exercising discretion in this common tongue” 172It is clear that Kennedy and Walzer profess the same project to urge the public government military personnel to engage with and take responsibility for what happens in modern war But Walzer critiues the “legalistic language” only to propose a language if you grant him that it is not a mere reiteration of international legal norms that is eually rule based eually black and white It would be just as easy to run from the responsibility of “freedom and free decision” when bound by his language Kennedy urges us to be aware if this and to exercise moral agencyHow can this be done the reader is left wondering To do this reuires a second level of awareness of the workings of power the working of other hegemonic discourses that structure or distort reality This is unfortunately only hinted at in the book and is its major flaw

David Kennedy ð Of War and Law pdf

Of War and LawBeaten ploughshares into swords while encouraging the bureaucratization of strategy and leadership A culture of rules has eroded the experience of personal decision making and responsibility among soldiers and statesmen alike Kennedy urges those inside and outside the military who wish to reduce the ferocity of battle to understand the new roles and the limits of law Only then will we be able to revitalize our responsibility for wa Good but the thesis is overly generalizing One of those books where the thesis gets in the way of what is obviously an excellent historical understanding of the subject The historical dialectic that he presents with each successive generation of legal scholars coming as an antithesis to the previous and the final period as synthesis removes all the subtleties of legal analysis and the different trends withinStill absolutely interesting and enlightening on the topic