Theorising order in the shadow of war: the politics of international legal knowledge and the justification of force in modernity

The History of International Law lacks systematic studies on the link between legal scholars and practices of justifying war. This missing analytical link has for a long time given the impression that legal scholars describe 'state practice' in an 'objective', unpolitical way. Contradicting this impression, the article turns to the politics of legal scholars in the genesis of the modern war discourse. It reflects on the fateful entanglement of violence, law and politics, but nevertheless distinguishes between 'objective' and 'political' scholarship on the basis of Hans Kelsen's work. Furthermore, the article illustrates the politicisability of legal scholars in selected historical cases of the 'long 19th century' (1789-1918). In all cases, two hearts pounded in lawyers' chests: one scientific, the other political. As will be shown, the modern war discourse is shaped by a phenomenon that enables scholars to expand the intrinsic limits to the political instrumentalisation of law: 'multi-normativity'

The myth of liberum ius ad bellum : justifying war in 19th-century legal theory and political practice

The proposition of so-called liberum ius ad bellum claims that European states in the 19th century were no longer bound by the moral criteria of just war (bellum iustum) but that they held a sovereign right to go to war. This thesis is widely accepted among scholars of the history of international law and international relations alike. Nevertheless, the realist perspective on international relations was challenged in 19th-century international legal discourse. Several contemporary international lawyers were in favour of the legalization of international relations in order to legally ban unilateral war. Not much attention has so far been paid to the controversial debate on liberum ius ad bellum, which appears particularly in late 19th-century legal treatises. In the present article, this dispute will be analysed by comparing different normative justifications and criticism of war in 19th-century international legal doctrine. As will be shown, by confronting legal doctrine with contemporary state practice, the narrative of liberum ius ad bellum constitutes a myth in the history of international law

Human immunodeficiency virus infection and child sexual abuse

No Abstract