{"id":168542,"date":"2026-02-07T18:57:32","date_gmt":"2026-02-08T02:57:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=168542"},"modified":"2026-02-07T15:21:13","modified_gmt":"2026-02-07T23:21:13","slug":"decoding-revolutionary-war-and-the-development-of-international-humanitarian-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=168542","title":{"rendered":"Decoding Revolutionary War and the Development of International Humanitarian Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

In her chapter from 2023’s book Making Endless War: The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Conflicts in the History of International Law<\/a>, Amanda Alexander deconstructs the narrative that the Vietnam War was a unique “legal crisis” that shattered a previously stable consensus on the laws of war. By applying my four favorite tools, we can see how the “Revolutionary War” (specifically Vietnam) was used to move international law from a profane state-centric model to a sacred humanitarian one.<\/p>\n

The Shift from Profane Reciprocity to the Sacred Humanitarian<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jeffrey Alexander\u2019s model<\/a> explains that a crisis begins when an event shifts from the profane level of routine politics to a sacred level of normative violation. Amanda Alexander argues that before the 1960s, the laws of war were “profane”\u2014a set of technical, reciprocal rules designed for conventional conflicts between states.<\/p>\n

The Vietnam War triggered a generalization of consciousness that transformed these rules into “International Humanitarian Law”. The war was sacralized as a “Good War” for human rights, moving the discourse away from the profane interests of sovereign states toward the sacred protection of the individual. This created a binary symbolic classification: the “pure” humanitarian vision that protects all participants versus the “impure,” outdated model that only recognized state soldiers.<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory and the Revolutionary Focal Point<\/strong><\/p>\n

David Pinsof\u2019s Alliance Theory<\/a> suggests that moralized language is a tool for synchronization. The “Revolutionary War” in Vietnam provided a new focal point for an alliance of Third World states, the ICRC, and Western legal activists. They used the “outrage” over the exclusion of guerilla fighters from legal protection to coordinate a challenge against the traditional Great Power alliance.<\/p>\n

In the “Everything is Bullshit<\/a>” framework, the narrative that the 1977 Additional Protocols were a “victory for humanity” is an adaptive deception. This moralized story allowed the new alliance to pursue its strategic interest in legitimizing revolutionary struggles while maintaining a reputation for pure altruism. The “humanitarian” label was the signal that allowed these diverse groups to synchronize their attack on the old state-centric order.<\/p>\n

Expertise and the Authoritative Closure of IHL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Stephen Turner<\/a>\u2019s analysis of expertise explains how a specialized class creates “liberal property” to bypass democratic or organic legitimacy. Alexander notes that the “humanitarianization” of the law was led by a specific class of experts\u2014international lawyers and ICRC officials.<\/p>\n

These experts act as the “priests” of the new IHL paradigm, creating an authoritative closure of the field. They replaced the profane, state-based “usage” and “practice” with their own expert-led “humanitarian” interpretations. By claiming that the law must be truly “humanitarian” to be legitimate, they ensure that only those with their specialized credentials can define the rules of modern warfare, effectively silencing the “profane” arguments of military practitioners.<\/p>\n

The Ritual of the “Vietnam Crisis”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Applying Jeffrey Alexander\u2019s concept of the “ritual of purification,” the post-Vietnam legal reforms functioned as a liminal experience. The legal cartel framed Vietnam not as a profane political failure but as a “crisis of the law” that required ritual renewal.<\/p>\n

The 1977 Additional Protocols acted as the ritual that re-anchored the “sacred center” of international law. By “bracketing” the messy, particularist politics of the Cold War and anti-colonialism, the experts created a simplified drama of “humanitarian progress”. This ritual allowed the discipline to survive its own failure in Vietnam by declaring the old law “impure” and establishing a new, “pure” humanitarian center that remains the dominant framework today.<\/p>\n

ChatGPT says:<\/p>\n

1. Alliance Theory. Revolutionary war as an alliance stress test<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alexander shows that revolutionary war did not merely challenge Western militaries. It fractured the elite alliance that underwrote the traditional laws of war.<\/p>\n

Before Vietnam and Palestine, the alliance structure was stable.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Western states
\n\u2022 professional militaries
\n\u2022 international lawyers
\n\u2022 the ICRC<\/p>\n

This alliance shared an image of war. Uniformed soldiers. Passive civilians. Clear battlefields. Law reinforced state monopoly over violence.<\/p>\n

Revolutionary wars blew this up. People\u2019s war erased the separation between population and army. Civilians were fighters. Fighters were civilians. Legitimacy flowed from mass participation, not state recognition.<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory predicts the response.
\nElites do not abandon monopoly claims. They reconfigure law to absorb the challenge.<\/p>\n

Additional Protocol I is the alliance repair mechanism. Guerrillas are brought inside the law as combatants sometimes. Civilians are sacralized as protected always. The state remains central. Revolutionary violence is neutralized by juridification.<\/p>\n

The law does not endorse people\u2019s war. It domesticates it.<\/p>\n

2. Alexander\u2019s sacralization model. How civilians replaced sovereignty as the sacred object<\/strong><\/p>\n

This chapter traces a full sacralization cycle.<\/p>\n

Profane baseline<\/p>\n

War is openly political. Civilians are enemy nationals. They may be harmed if militarily useful.<\/p>\n

Normative shock<\/p>\n

Vietnam, Palestine, and decolonization produce mass civilian suffering that delegitimizes imperial power in Western consciousness.<\/p>\n

Pollution of the center<\/p>\n

Counterinsurgency that targets civilians is framed as morally contaminating. Not just wrong. Civilization-threatening.<\/p>\n

Generalization<\/p>\n

Debate shifts from tactics to universal values. Humanity. Innocence. Protection. War is judged not by victory but by civilian harm.<\/p>\n

Ritual of purification<\/p>\n

Diplomatic conferences. UN resolutions. Additional Protocol I. These are liminal rituals where a new moral order is declared.<\/p>\n

Symbolic classification<\/p>\n

Revolutionary fighters are partially purified as combatants. Imperial counterinsurgents are polluted as violators. Civilians become sacred figures whose suffering authorizes legal reform.<\/p>\n

Alexander\u2019s key insight is sharp. Civilians become sacred precisely because revolutionary war made them unavoidable participants.<\/p>\n

3. Pinsof. Why incoherent law survived and spread<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pinsof explains why everyone accepted a deeply contradictory settlement.<\/p>\n

The new law says:<\/p>\n

\u2022 civilians must be protected
\n\u2022 guerrillas may be civilians
\n\u2022 civilians may participate in hostilities
\n\u2022 yet distinction remains foundational<\/p>\n

This is conceptually unstable. But it is signaling-stable.<\/p>\n

Affirming civilian protection signals moral modernity.
\nAffirming guerrilla legitimacy signals anti-imperial virtue.
\nAffirming distinction signals legal continuity.<\/p>\n

No actor needs to fully believe the framework. They need only signal alliance membership.<\/p>\n

Western states abstain instead of voting no. Lawyers call provisions \u201ccustomary\u201d despite novelty. Everyone survives reputationally.<\/p>\n

This is pure \u201ceverything is bullshit\u201d logic. Speech is optimized for coalition safety, not coherence.<\/p>\n

4. Turner. Expertise absorbs revolutionary politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Turner\u2019s framework explains how revolutionary claims were neutralized without suppression.<\/p>\n

People\u2019s war challenged law at the level of politics. It said legitimacy comes from popular struggle.<\/p>\n

International humanitarian law responds by translating that challenge into expert categories.<\/p>\n

Combatant status. Distinction during deployment. Direct participation in hostilities. Proportionality.<\/p>\n

Once translated, revolutionary violence loses its political meaning. It becomes a compliance problem.<\/p>\n

Experts now decide who is a fighter, when, and with what rights. The people are no longer authors of legitimacy. They are objects of classification.<\/p>\n

Turner would say this is authority laundering. Law converts mass politics into technical judgment.<\/p>\n

How the four tools fit together<\/p>\n

Alliance Theory explains why the law had to change.
\nSacralization explains what became morally untouchable.
\nPinsof explains how contradiction persisted.
\nTurner explains who gained control.<\/p>\n

The core takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alexander\u2019s chapter shows that international humanitarian law did not arise to restrain revolutionary war.<\/p>\n

It arose to survive it.<\/p>\n

The law absorbed the moral force of people\u2019s war while stripping it of political autonomy. Civilians became sacred. Guerrillas became regulated. States retained control.<\/p>\n

Revolutionary war reshaped humanitarian law.
\nHumanitarian law then reshaped revolutionary war.<\/p>\n

That is the historical loop Alexander is exposing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In her chapter from 2023’s book Making Endless War: The Vietnam and Arab-Israeli Conflicts in the History of International Law, Amanda Alexander deconstructs the narrative that the Vietnam War was a unique “legal crisis” that shattered a previously stable consensus … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42954],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-human-rights"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=168542"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168542\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":168585,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168542\/revisions\/168585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=168542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=168542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=168542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}