Filling the Gaps: The Expansion of International Humanitarian Law and the Juridification of the Free-Fighter

Posted on June 21, 2024 by Luke Ford

Amanda Alexander writes in 2023:

Abstract: This article traces the expansion of international law from the Hague Conventions, where only a state’s soldiers had legal status, to the contemporary understanding that international law governs all participants in conflict. This can be seen as a humanitarian shift that diminishes state power. This article, however, argues that the Hague Conventions only established a limited sphere of formal law because delegates deliberately left free-fighters outside the law, to be governed by their own will and moral code. In doing so, delegates echoed a philosophical tradition that situates true freedom outside the state. As this article shows, the expansion of law to include such fighters required the replacement of such alternative codes with a renewed and extended range of formal legal criteria. As such, the expansion of international law to the realm outside the state has led to a reaffirmation of that law which is synonymous with the state.

…These requirements left many people outside the law – in particular, the ‘uncivilised’ and the ‘savage’. They were denied what legal protection existed; their struggles were not regarded as real wars or conflicts. In 1927, Colby listed an array of legal opinions that insisted that ‘the rules of International Law apply only to warfare between civilized nations, where both parties understand them and are prepared to carry them out.’3 Savage tribes were incapable of waging war in the sense of international law – ‘barbarous and loosely organized bands are incapable of attaining a status of belligerency.

The fact that so many people and incidents fell outside the law led, as has been rightly noted, to some horrific political and ethical consequences as well as an array of practical problems.5 As a result, there were repeated, if slow, attempts to fill the gaps in international law.

…Discipline, according to Weber, means that the obedience of a plurality of men is rationally uniform.17 Discipline is impersonal and neutral; it places itself at the disposal of every power that claims its service and knows how to promote it.18 In this way, the soldiers of the modern state do not fight for individual or group causes, nor do they follow personal motivations or values. They simply obey and represent the state. As Weber writes, ‘Discipline puts the drill for the sake of habitual routinized skill in place of heroic ecstasy, loyalty, spirited enthusiasm for a leader and personal devotion to him, the cult of honor, or the cultivation of personal fitness as an art’.19 The state’s monopoly on force requires, according to Weber, continuous administration, the control of the material goods needed for violence, and an associated administrative staff that is separated from the material means of violence.20 Alongside the creation of this bureaucratic state, societies develop a legal system with a formal, “rational” character.

Moreover, when violence belongs only to the state, this right to use violence, to dominate men, must rest on some form of legitimation.22 This distinguishes it from the violence of the warrior group, which required no legitimation or normativity.23 In the modern state, the most characteristic form of legitimation is domination ‘by virtue of “legality”, by virtue of the belief in the validity of legal statute and functional “competence” based on rationally created rules’.

Thus, there is a link between the modern state’s monopoly on violence, and the idea of a formal rule of law, also characteristic of the modern civilised state.

…The asceticism and self-control of Protestantism, Weber says, is aimed against one thing – the spontaneous enjoyment of life and all that it has to offer.

Posted in Human Rights, International Law | Comments Off on Filling the Gaps: The Expansion of International Humanitarian Law and the Juridification of the Free-Fighter

Human rights – the key to all mythologies! (6-21-24)

Posted on June 21, 2024 by Luke Ford

Posted in Human Rights | Comments Off on Human rights – the key to all mythologies! (6-21-24)

Narrative Contingency and International Humanitarian Law: Crimes against humanity in Cixin Liu’s post-humanist universe

Posted on June 21, 2024 by Luke Ford

Amanda Alexander writes:

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the term which names, and also conceptualises, the current regime of the laws of war. The name belongs to a particular narrative about the history and purposes of this regime. In the orthodox narrative that was built as this regime emerged in the 1990s, modern IHL was born when Dunant witnessed, with horror, the inhumanity of the Battle of Solferino. Dunant and the International Committee of the Red Cross went on to develop a humanitarian system of law, aimed at protecting the hors de combat and limiting the brutality of war.1 One of the archetypal offences of this contemporary regime is crimes against humanity— that is assaults on civilian populations, whether they occur in international conflict or not. This offence makes the protection of civilians and the value of humanity a more powerful concern than the traditional respect for sovereignty in international law.

The emergence of this humanitarian law of warfare and its shifting interpretation of crimes against humanity, from the Nuremberg Trials until the current day, has been dependent on the narratives that could be told about the law. These legal narratives are often informed by extra- legal discourses, such as strategic, moral, philosophical, or fictional narratives. As the narrative possibilities change, so too does the ethical and aesthetic framework of IHL and, consequently, the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of law. This can lead to dramatic, yet often invisible, changes to the laws of armed conflict.

Critical international lawyers have, overtly or obliquely, acknowledged the importance of narrative as a source of meaning that shapes the interpretation and practice of international law. In their genealogies of the discourses of international law, these lawyers have argued that, although the prevailing narratives make universal claims, they are predominantly Western— arising from Western interests and facilitating Western hegemony.4 Human rights and humanitarianism have not been exempted from this critique.5 They are described as a language which has been shaped by Western concerns and imposed on others,6 a language which legitimates some subjects of history and erases others,7 while justifying imperialist and neo- imperial projects.8 As a result, an important part of the critical approach to international law has involved challenging these dominant narratives with alternative accounts and interpretations of international law.9 Some critical lawyers have sought a form of emancipation in such work— but many are less hopeful.10 They have warned that attempts at counternarratives will always be undermined or co- opted by existing power arrangements.

Moreover, they have questioned whether it is even possible to shape new narratives within international law without adopting Western structures and liberal values. The difficulty of developing new forms of narratives is not just a problem for international law. It affects even the possibilities of the histories that underpin law and legal theory. In Hayden White’s narrative theory of history, the possibilities of historical narratives are limited; only certain humanist approaches will count as ‘History’.13 Thus, IHL may be contingent on narrative possibilities, but it is hard to see these narratives, hard to change them, and even harder to imagine a different range of aesthetic and ethical possibilities.

Cixin Liu’s science fiction epic, Remembrance of Earth’s Past,14 however, gives us an unusual opportunity to explore a vision of what such an alternative international law might look like if it were not based on Western narratives or humanist thinking. Science fiction provides an opportunity to create new worlds and, in Liu’s case, to present new aesthetic forms.

Posted in Human Rights, International Law | Comments Off on Narrative Contingency and International Humanitarian Law: Crimes against humanity in Cixin Liu’s post-humanist universe

Decoding Israel’s Coming War With Hezbollah (6-20-24)

Posted on June 20, 2024 by Luke Ford

01:00 Caitlin Clark Conundrum, https://www.takimag.com/article/34053/
08:00 Col Douglas Macgregor: Israel Prepares for All Out War in Lebanon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXD8t7gYpTo
17:30 Turkey invades Cyprus with Russia’s blessing if Israel attacks Hezbollah
28:00 Is Israel Committing Genocide? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155365
41:00 Revolutions in International Law: The Legacies of 1917, https://www.amazon.com/Revolutions-International-Law-Legacies-1917/dp/1108495036
44:00 A Short History of International Humanitarian Law, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=155471
1:30:00 Hizballah’s historic drone footage sends warning to Israel, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-C4rl9LoeU

Transcript.

Steve Sailer recently wrote an excellent column about Caitlin Clark, who has drawn my attention to women’s basketball for the first time. She stands out not only because of her skills but also due to her likable and attractive personality. The WNBA, however, seems uninterested in addressing the issues that make it less appealing.

The NBA once faced similar problems with player behavior negatively impacting its reputation. Back then, league executives took action to change this image, which begs the question: why hasn’t the WNBA done the same? Especially when they have a star like Clark who could redefine women’s basketball much like Michael Jordan did for men’s.

In baseball, changes such as introducing a pitch clock sped up gameplay by 15% in 2023. This kind of innovation is needed across sports to keep them engaging and profitable.

Discussing international politics, there are speculations about Israel potentially escalating conflict with Hezbollah as part of a broader strategic move involving Iran and possibly Turkey. Such developments could dramatically shift regional dynamics and draw in global powers like Russia and the US.

Finally, Caitlin Clark’s success has highlighted differences between male and female athletes’ popularity and earnings potential within professional sports leagues. Her rise reflects how personal backgrounds can influence public perception and marketability in sports.

People disillusioned with leftist politics often seek new utopian ideals, ignoring their practical impact. They discuss human rights as if they’re sacred, without considering real-world implications or the need for careful argumentation.

Humanitarian lawyers and activists speak to believers, neglecting clarity and accuracy. Their field’s influence is limited; credibility is key but often ignored in favor of lofty rhetoric.

For example, in legal negotiations over intellectual property sales, indemnification clauses are critical. A lawyer must be precise and analytical to protect the client’s interests—broad clauses can lead to devastating financial loss.

Similarly, advocates of nascent fields like human rights law must make credible claims since they lack enforcement power. Vague statements won’t convince critical thinkers; only those unconcerned with truth will follow.

Credibility matters when you have no “worldly” power—as seen with early Christians or NGOs facing powerful states today. Human rights groups may raise awareness but have little effect on global conflicts unless backed by strong armies enforcing international law.

Thus, while these organizations strive for peace and justice through humanitarian law, their success depends on support from nations willing to enforce these laws militarily—a rare occurrence that turns idealistic aspirations into tangible reality.

Men tend to be more physically aggressive than women, with statistics showing higher instances of male violence. Men also respond to hierarchy and rules which can keep their aggression in check. Women, when competitive, may not adhere as strictly to rules and might engage in less straightforward tactics during conflicts such as divorces.

If a relationship ends badly, it’s often heard that one party tries to ruin the other’s life. While this can happen with both genders, societal expectations of masculinity discourage men from engaging in such behavior; they’re expected instead to provide and protect.

Different sexes have different strengths; men are generally more rule-oriented in competition while women may dislike competition but respond intensely to nurturing roles. This difference is reflected in areas like international law where humanitarian efforts are seen as more feminine pursuits due to their focus on care and nurturing.

The shift toward a female-dominated approach has affected organizations’ structures too – they operate differently from male-dominated ones by focusing less on hierarchies and more on inclusion within social circles.

Furthermore, fields like economics remain largely masculine while education leans towards being predominantly female due to natural inclinations towards caring for children.

Ultimately, both male upward orientation and female nurturing capabilities are essential across society. However, the rise of feminist perspectives has led some areas of human rights law into utopian realms detached from practical outcomes – driven by emotion rather than tangible results.

Human Rights activists and scholars and partisans may tirelessly to make ends meet while running a successful organization that challenges traditional concepts with utopian ideas. They reject outdated patriarchal and capitalist constraints, promoting international humanitarian law instead.

Their interpretation of the laws of war is strict; they advocate for minimal civilian casualties and limit acceptable military targets and weapons. Human rights groups like Amnesty International report on conflicts with stringent standards, often without legal or factual basis but driven by post-patriarchal ideals.

The rules of engagement have changed: no military gain justifies high civilian losses, making most conventional warfare tactics illegal in this new perspective. The focus has shifted to prioritize human flourishing over strategic objectives, mirroring shifts in societal norms where anything less than optimal conditions constitutes abuse – whether it’s child rearing or wartime conduct.

Israel faces challenges too; despite its past victories, Hezbollah’s improved defenses question Israel’s ability to win effectively on multiple fronts. There are doubts about Israel’s air defense capabilities as enemy drones capture footage over Israeli territory.

Hezbollah has demonstrated power through media operations showing potential strike targets within Israel – an unsettling reminder for Israelis who fear their country’s vulnerability amidst escalating tensions. As both sides prepare for possible conflict, misjudgments could lead to devastating consequences unless there is mutual understanding between them.

Nasrallah warned that 200,000 Israelis displaced could become two million instantly. He highlighted vulnerable sites like petrochemical and oil facilities, power plants, and Haifa airport within the port area.

I’ve condensed a 10-minute video showing Hezbollah’s enhanced capability to threaten Israel from the north. The footage reveals both civilian and military areas in the port of Haifa – a grim reminder of what full-scale war with Hezbollah might entail.

Posted in Israel, Lebanon | Comments Off on Decoding Israel’s Coming War With Hezbollah (6-20-24)

Journalistic Ethics (12-9-20)

Posted on June 19, 2024 by Luke Ford

I was watching this Mike Fisher video he was he was ranting about Skip Bayless. Troy Aikman, Fox football analyst and former Dallas Cowboy championship quarterback, also said how very disappointed he was that Fox had hired Skip Bayless to do the morning show Undisputed.

And they both both made the bogus accusation that Skip Bayless in his book on the 1995 championship Cowboys team that falsely accused Troy of being gay. And it’s not true. There’s a chapter in it where Skip simply mentions how widespread the rumors were around the Dallas cowboys that Troy was gay, but he made very clear in the book that he that he know no evidence that this was true, He was just shocked that Barry Switzer the coach seemed to believe that Troy was gay or at least was hearing there’s those rumors. So there comes a point where the the accurate reporting of rumors, those is it’s good journalism is is necessary to to understand what’s going on. Skip put the rumors in context, he said I now have no factual evidence for them, but all these people in the Dallas Cowboys organization seem to believe that Trey was gay.

So there’s a night and day difference between the accurate reporting of a rumor and pointing out that there’s no factual evidence for it versus making the allegation of the rumor.

So that that led me to getting into discussion with a friend what what are journalist ethics. Journalist ethics not like The ethics for doctors, ethics for lawyers because the ethical obligations to whom you owe your obligations, they’re so varied for journalists. So as a journalist, do you primarily owe ethical obligations to your readers? You primarily owe ethical obligations to your sources of information? You primarily owe ethical obligations to the people you write about? Do you primarily owe ethical obligations to your profession? Because journalists depend heavily on cooperation from general public. Who do you primarily owe?

Ethical obligations to your employer, to your advertisers? There’s so many competing ethical obligations and it’s not at all clear to whom journalists owe their primary obligation. So that makes journalist ethics quite unlike the ethical codes of other professions. For example, it’s pretty clear that the doctor’s primary ethical obligation is to his patients. And an attorney’s primary ethical obligation is to his client and to the to the legal system. An accountant’s primary and obligation is to the general public, particularly, let’s say, investors, potential investors, those who might be affected by who are relying on the the accountant doing an honest job. And dentists, obviously, their primary ethical obligation is to the patient. But dentist, that’s interesting. So many dentists, push things that are bogus.

Right? There’s so many dentists abusing the the trust of their. Their patients. Is there any profession that so often abuses their clients as dentists do. Much of what dentists recommend is bogus. For example, there’s no empirical evidence that floss does does any good. Some dental procedures are often unnecessary. All they do is line the the dentist pockets. So so there’s a great article in the Atlantic about how off the hook dangerous dentists are with their just lack of ethical behavior in getting people to have unnecessary root canals, all sorts of painful expensive surgeries that line the dentist pockets, but do the patient no good.

Yearly dental x-rays are often over a $100. Be highly skeptical of what your dentist suggest you spend because abuse is just rampant and the profession hasn’t demonstrated much interest in curtail it.

So really watch out for your dentist and car mechanics. I don’t know anything about the workings of the automobiles. I don’t know how often they’ve taken advantage of me. I suspect they’ve rooked me for tens of thousands of dollars. The primary ethical obligation for the car mechanic is to a client, but then also to the state. For example, if we have laws about emissions. There are many people who do emissions, and they help people cheat the standard and the result is we all suffer from decreased air quality.

So there are all sorts of professions that exists primarily for the benefit of the profession not for the public and they have no interest in curtail abuse. Think about mortgage brokers and mortgage lending. They they have you sign such complicated lengthy documents that that there’s no reason to expect an ordinary person to understand what’s going on. There’s are so many fees that you are not not cognizant of, it’s clearly a profession where they have aligned a complicated way of doing things, so that they can screw you over.

For journalistic ethics, the most important thing is to know the name of the person who’s committing the work. Ethical questions will sort themselves out because the most important capital you have as a journalist is your reputation. So You get a reputation for misquoting people. People aren’t going to talk to you. You get a reputation being unfair. People won’t want deal with you. People won’t give you information. So as a journalist you you largely depend on other people cooperating, giving you information. That you honor on or off the record. So you quickly develop a reputation for fairness and accuracy and integrity. Do you make an honest effort to show different sides to a story?

So as long as your name is on your work, your ethics are going to sort themselves out.

Because if you show yourself to be a bad character, people are gonna shun you. Like most professions, journalists are most concerned about their reputation with their peers. So they probably socialize mainly with other the journalists. They want to look good to other journalists and so that that gives them an incentive to operate by the standards of their profession.

That also provides them a tremendous incentive for protecting their group. I got called by a CNN booker in 2007 because I was the guy who broke the story about the mayor of Los Angeles. He’d stopped wearing his wedding ring, he’d been having an affair with a news reader on a Spanish language TV station that covered him. So CNN wanted to bring me on the show live, so they sent a limo to pick me up at 4AM.

And I got into the CNN Los Angeles studio on sunset Boulevard about 4:30AM, and then they said, oh, we’re moving the interview back till it’s not gonna be live. It’s gonna be taped, and they when when we do the taped interview, I didn’t get to see the the woman anchor was asking me the questions. That’s by design, so that you’re on the defensive. And I noted that it was well known among journalists that for many months the married mayor had not been wearing his wedding ring, but the journalists were reluctant for various reasons to report on the mayor’s dissolving marriage because they wanted to support the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles in over a century and they generally agreed with this politics, and so they they were protective of mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. And the CNN anchor said, how can you say the about Los Angeles Times. They’ve Pulitzer surprises. Well, Pulitzer prize does not denote journalist excellence. It’s a popularity contest with other journalists. So New York Times journalists who lied for Stalin and covered up the the Ukrainian genocide. He got a Pulitzer prize.

Janet Cooke of the Washington Post invented a story about drug kids who are born with drug addictions. She just completely invented the story, and she she won a Pulitzer prize. So lots of long boring stories win Pulitzers because they’ve hit the sweet spot of what the profession regards as important, what it should support. S

So CNN did not air any of my interview. They didn’t wanna hear me criticize all the journalists. They didn’t wanna hear me point out that other journalists were aware of the same story I was, but that the journalist profession in Los Angeles had covered up for the mayor over the previous 6 to 9 months because they didn’t wanna break any embarrassing story about the mayor’s marriage.

Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor of The Atlantic. Like other journalist elites, he paid no price for lying America into invading Iraq in 2003 by pushing bogus stories about Iraq having WMD. Who suffered a hit for Russiagate promotion? Many of the perpetrators of that bogus story got Pulitzer prizes.

Journalists don’t generally pay pay a price for political activism. As long as their political activism fits in with the the world view of the the reigning elites.

So the New York Times found that there was the most money to be made and subscriptions to be gained from publishing opinion pieces about how horrible Trump was. So the New York Times has moved from an primarily advertising based publication where you’re rewarded for getting hits to a subscription model where you’re rewarded for reinforcing the world the world view of subscribers. So newspapers and Tv channels they’re are also a business. So just like Fox, they they tap into an audience, by largely telling the audience what they wanna hear. So to the New York Times has found its business model in telling telling its audience what it wants to hear.

Rather than what what may actually be true.

That’s the the winning business model. People have a particular view of the world, and they wanna be able to tune in to you and get that view of the world reinforced and extended into new areas.

The most powerful human desire is the desire for status. So status simply means the opposite of humiliation. So instead of going to work in the bar saying to you hey dexter bring me a cup of coffee. The boss says, hey, can you come into my office? And what do you think about this?

Love to get your opinion on this? Or you have people who who wanna know your opinion or respect you or treat you with, say some defer, so desire for status has a huge effect on our political opinions. Generally speaking, people are going to subscribe to the politics that fits in with the crowd that they wanna belong to. So if you’re an orthodox Jew you want to subscribe to a politics that fits in with the generally conservative political world of orthodox Jews. If you’re in the news media, you’re gonna wanna subscribe to a politics that fits in with with the worldview of your peers.

So you reject what our ruling elites believe is true, and you develop status in an alternative world. So you promote special knowledge aka conspiracy theories. So is there any more dramatic way to oppose everything that is held sacred in the Western world in 2020 than by denying the Holocaust. If you deny the holocaust, then you are completely giving up all options for status in the mainstream world, and you are making a dramatic play for status in the alternative world. So if you say Covid is a hoax, holocaust is a hoax then you’re rejecting status in the mainstream world and you’re are vying for status in the alternative ward.

So is it anti-social not to want status? Or even to want the opposite. I don’t believe that there’s anyone who doesn’t want status. It does seem anti-social, anti-human. If you don’t want status what you’re saying is that you’re you’re fine with humiliation which is incredibly dangerous to your well being. It’s incredibly dangerous to your health. It’s incredibly dangerous to your survival. And if you don’t want status, then you’re reducing your ability to form bonds with people. Because nobody who wants to be bonded to someone who is just continually being humiliated. Someone who is a walking talking humiliation, what kind of person will wanna bond with such a person? Only a fellow loser.

Playing to your audience is a very good business model. Having contempt for your audience tends to be a bad business model. Not wearing a mask inside during a dangerous influenza pandemic is also trying to gain status in an alternative world.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Journalistic Ethics (12-9-20)