Get The Justification of War and International Order Lothar Brock PDF ebook with Full Chapters Now
Get The Justification of War and International Order Lothar Brock PDF ebook with Full Chapters Now
Get The Justification of War and International Order Lothar Brock PDF ebook with Full Chapters Now
com
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-justification-of-war-and-
international-order-lothar-brock/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWNLOAD NOW
https://ebookmass.com/product/iraq-against-the-world-saddam-america-
and-the-post-cold-war-order-samuel-helfont/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/corruption-and-global-justice-gillian-
brock/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/kants-justification-of-ethics-owen-ware/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/pastor-tillich-the-justification-of-the-
doubter-samuel-andrew-shearn/
ebookmass.com
The Myth of International Order: Why Weak States Persist
and Alternatives to the State Fade Away Arjun Chowdhury
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-myth-of-international-order-why-
weak-states-persist-and-alternatives-to-the-state-fade-away-arjun-
chowdhury/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/from-slaves-to-prisoners-of-war-the-
ottoman-empire-russia-and-international-law-smiley/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/edmund-burke-as-historian-war-order-and-
civilisation-1st-edition-sora-sato-auth/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/italy-in-the-new-international-
order-1917-1922-1st-ed-edition-antonio-varsori/
ebookmass.com
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-economy-and-international-
order-in-interwar-europe-1st-edition-alexandre-m-cunh/
ebookmass.com
The Justification of War
and International Order
T H E H I S T O RY A N D T H E O RY O F
I N T E R NAT IO NA L L AW
General Editors
NEHAL BHUTA
Chair in International Law, University of Edinburgh
ANTHONY PAGDEN
Distinguished Professor, University of California Los Angeles
BENJAMIN STRAUMANN
ERC Professor of History, University of Zurich
In the past few decades the understanding of the relationship between nations
has undergone a radical transformation. The role of the traditional nation-
state is diminishing, along with many of the traditional vocabularies which
were once used to describe what has been called, ever since Jeremy Bentham
coined the phrase in 1780, ‘international law’. The older boundaries between
states are growing ever more fluid, new conceptions and new languages have
emerged which are slowly coming to replace the image of a world of sovereign
independent nation-states which has dominated the study of international
relations since the early nineteenth century. This redefinition of the international
arena demands a new understanding of classical and contemporary questions
in international and legal theory. It is the editors’ conviction that the best way
to achieve this is by bridging the traditional divide between international legal
theory, intellectual history, and legal and political history. The aim of the series,
therefore, is to provide a forum for historical studies, from classical antiquity to
the twenty-first century, that are theoretically informed and for philosophical
work that is historically conscious, in the hope that a new vision of the rapidly
evolving international world, its past and its possible future, may emerge.
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© the many contributors 2021
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020942234
ISBN 978–0–19–886530–8
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.001.0001
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Preface by the Editors
The idea for this book was born in the summer of 2017. But even before, the obser-
vation that the use of force throughout history needs justification and that the justi-
fication of war interacts with the construction of international order had become a
recurring and increasingly central topic in our research projects at the Peace Research
Institute Frankfurt and in our seminars taught at Frankfurt’s Goethe-University.
Lothar encountered the justification of war as a theoretical endeavour and a polit-
ical practice in the context of his engagement with the modern project of achieving
peace through law, which in our view still is to be defended, by being critically exam-
ined, against the ‘hard facts’ of international anarchy which Realists of all walks of ac-
ademic life and life in general like to refer to. At the same time, Hendrik was engaged
in writing well-placed articles and a historic study on the ‘myth of the “free right to go
to war” ’ (which, of course, sometimes suffered under the workload of producing the
present volume). Our discussions led to the idea of engaging with the role of norms in
political discourses on the legitimation of violence under a broader geographical, his-
torical, and disciplinary perspective—from past(s) to present(s), as the book’s subtitle
indicates. For it seemed conspicuous that war has never been and probably will never
be waged without recourse to norms, as we and our authors emphasize in this volume.
So the contributions of the book follow, in different ways, the assumption that the his-
tory of war is also a history of its justification and interacts with what is recognized as
international order.
With regard to the relevant literature, we soon realized that, although there is an
intense philosophical debate on the justification of war, in particular in connection
with the ‘just war’ tradition, empirical research on the nexus of war justifications and
international order in theory and political practice is still rare to date. In this respect,
the present volume brings together different approaches and promotes new dia-
logues across the disciplinary boundaries of the History and Theory of International
Law, International Relations, International Political History, Political Theory, and
Sociology. Of course, we make no claim to present the final or second to final word in
this matter. Hopefully, however, the present volume contributes to the series editors’
project of ‘bridging the traditional divide between international legal theory, intellec-
tual history, and legal and political history’.
The fact that our project could be implemented is primarily, of course, thanks to
our authors, whom we are deeply indebted to for their inspiring contributions which
soon turned our project into a project of all participating. We owe them great thanks.
In addition, a number of individuals have contributed to the genesis of the book, to
whom we would like to express our sincere thanks: first of all, Beate Jahn, Anuschka
Tischer, and particularly Miloš Vec, who all enthusiastically supported the idea for
this book from the very beginning and who helped us with advice and support.
Anna Geis, Thilo Marauhn, Gert Krell, and Benno Teschke have critically read the
vi Preface by the Editors
introduction and made important suggestions. The same applies to the anonymous
peer reviewers, who, in an exemplary manner, provided a stimulating critique of what
we were about to do. The project was presented for the first time at a small panel at the
EISA Conference 2018 in Prague, attended by Mustafa Aksakal (who came all the way
from Washington!), Chris Brown, Beate Jahn, and Benno Teschke. We are grateful for
their encouragement in pursuing the project.
We also would like to thank the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt for providing
a stimulating environment and the necessary working space. Special thanks go to
Cornelia Hess, who helped us with formatting some of the chapters. Last not least we
thank the OUP team, especially Merel Alstein, Jordan Burke, and Jack McNichol, and
the Newgen team for their extremely helpful way in which they mentored the publi-
cation. The willingness of Nehal Bhuta, Anthony Pagden, and Benjamin Straumann
to suggest the project for inclusion in the ‘History and Theory of International Law’
Series of Oxford University Press, was, of course, decisive to get the project going in
the present context.
Finally, a very special thanks goes to Ingrid Krüger from Tübingen, who provided
the cover image. The original of the aquarelle is hanging in Lothar’s office at the Peace
Research Institute Frankfurt. What it tells us as cover of this volume is, of course, in
the eye of the beholder. We ourselves felt that, in analogy to a famous book on the his-
tory and theory of international law, it may be seen as offering an image of how the
apologetic and the utopian side of (international) law coalesce.
The present volume seeks to examine both the historical emergence of the modern
international order and its normative foundation. This foundation is excavated via the
normative justifications that have been put forward by the historical actors partaking
in international conflicts. Lothar Brock and Hendrik Simon, profitably avoiding the
pitfalls of scholarly parochialism, have gathered a global cast of contributors. The
chapters cover a very wide range of historical periods and geographical locations in-
deed and range from the early modern period to the current international legal order,
discussing a great number of legal and normative arguments and practices from places
in Europe, indigenous Spanish America, India, the Ottoman Empire, to China and
Russia. All this historical depth and geographical and scholarly range is disciplined
by a definitive focus that lies throughout on the justification of war and on the crucial
interaction between normative justification and conflict on the ground, between legal
scholarship and political practice.
This approach successfully overturns unexamined assumptions that have taken a
hold in scholarship and yields often counterintuitive results. It turns out that far from
lending support to a realist view of international order the investigation of the histor-
ical record of political practice often shows a surprisingly strong hold of normative
justifications on the imagination and argumentation of political actors, even in con-
texts such as the nineteenth-century European ‘Concert’ of Great Powers. Depending
on historical and geographical context, norms could at times and under certain con-
ditions exercise even more exogenous pull in political practice than in legal theory.
Norms and the conceptual materials they are built from, that is, managed to have, as a
matter of historical fact, causal effects on political practice and social reality.
Overall, we can see that the fine-grained analysis of both normative justification
and political practice over the long historical term leads to many necessary revisions
of longstanding orthodoxies. These revisions cannot be had cheaply, but must be
shown in the painstaking way that is under display in the well-integrated scholarship
assembled here. The vision emerging from this rich volume cannot be captured in
a few paragraphs, but if pressed to name the most salient upshot, one might point
to the striking historical datum that the need for justification is never really absent
throughout the regions and time periods under scrutiny and that this justificatory
need shows ‘on the ground’ and in practice no less than it does in learned treatises.
29 April 2020
Benjamin Straumann
List of Contributors
Mustafa Aksakal is Associate Professor of History and Nesuhi Ertegün Chair of Modern
Turkish Studies at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, where he teaches Ottoman
and Middle Eastern History. He is the author of The Ottoman Road to War in 1914 (2006);
‘Holy War Made in Germany? Ottoman Origins of the 1914 Jihad’, War in History (2011);
and ‘The Ottoman Empire’, in Robert Gerwarth and Erez Manela (eds), Empires at War.
1911–1923 (2014).
Mikhail Antonov is Professor of Law associated with the Law Faculty at the National
Research University ‘Higher School of Economics’ (Saint Petersburg) and practising
member of the Saint Petersburg Bar Association. Among his recent publications are
‘History of Russian Law and Its Interpretations’, Review of Central and East European Law
(2020); ‘Religion, Sexual Minorities, and the Rule of Law in Russia’, Journal of Law, Religion
and State (2019); ‘Legal Realism in Soviet and Russian Jurisprudence’, Review of Central
and East European Law (2018); ‘Conservative Philosophy and Doctrine of Sovereignty: A
Necessary Connection?’, Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie (2017).
Beate Jahn is Professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, UK. Her
publications include The Cultural Construction of International Relations (2000); Classical
Theory in International Relations (2006); Liberal Internationalism (2013); ‘Kant, Mill, and
Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs’, International Organization (2005); ‘Theorizing
the Political Relevance of IR Theory’, International Studies Quarterly (2017); and ‘Liberal
Internationalism: Historical Trajectory and Current Prospects’, International Affairs
(2018).
Arnulf Becker Lorca is a researcher at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso,
Henry Steiner Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School, and a Lecturer at Brandeis
University. His book Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History, 1842–1933
(2015) was the winner of the 2016 Book Prize of the European Society of International Law.
Lauren Benton is Barton M. Biggs Professor of History at Yale University. Her publications
include, with Lisa Ford, Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International
Law, 1800–1850 (2016); A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires,
1400–1900 (2010); and Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–
1900 (2002), which received the World History Association’s Bentley Book Prize and the
J. Willard Hurst Book Prize of the Law and Society Association.
Lothar Brock is Senior Professor of Political Science at Goethe-University Frankfurt and
at the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. His English publications on the topic of this
book include ‘The Use of Force in the Post-Cold War Era. From Collective Action back to
Pre-Charter Self Defense?’, in Michael Bothe, Mary Ellen O’Connell, and Natalino Ronzitti
xiv List of Contributors
(eds), Redefining Sovereignty. The Use of Force After the Cold War (2005); Democratic Wars.
Looking at the Dark Side of Democratic Peace (2006, co-ed. with Anna Geis and Harald
Müller); and ‘Between Sovereign Judgement and the International Rule of Law’, in Anthony
Lang, Jr and Mathias Albert (eds), The Politics of International Political Theory (2019).
Chris Brown is Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the LSE and the author of
International Society, Global Politics (2015); Practical Judgement in International Political
Theory (2010); Sovereignty, Rights and Justice (2002); International Relations Theory: New
Normative Approaches (1992). He is co-editor (with Terry Nardin and N.J. Rengger) of
International Relations in Political Thought (2002) and (with Robyn Eckersley) of The
Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (2018). His textbook Understanding
International Relations (2019) is now in its fifth edition.
Manjiao Chi is Professor and Founding Director at the Center for International Economic
Law and Policy (CIELP), Law School, University of International Business and Economics
(UIBE), China. His research fields cover international law, especially international
trade and investment policy and law, dispute settlement, and global governance. He is
a founding editor-in-chief of Asian Yearbook of International Economic Law, and au-
thor of Integrating Sustainable Development in International Investment Law: Normative
Incompatibility, System Integration and Governance Implications (2018).
B.S. Chimni is Professor of International Law at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal
Nehru University. Among his publications are ‘Third World Approaches to International
Law & Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflict’, 2 Chinese Journal of International
Law (2003, with Antony Anghie); and International Law and World Order. A Critique of
Contemporary Approaches (2nd ed., 2017).
Christopher Daase is Professor of International Organizations at Goethe-University
Frankfurt and Deputy Director of the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. Among his pub-
lications are Transformations of Security Studies. Dialogues, Diversity and Discipline (2015,
with Gabi Schlag und Julian Junk); Clausewitz on Small War (2015, with James Davis); and
Recognition in International Relations. Rethinking a Political Concept in a Global Context
(2015, with Caroline Fehl, Anna Geis, and Georgios Kolliarakis).
Nicole Deitelhoff is Professor of International Relations and Theories of International
Order at Goethe-University Frankfurt and Director of the Peace Research Institute
Frankfurt. Among her publications are Internationalization and the State. Sovereignty as
the External Side of Modern Statehood (with Michael Zürn), in Stephan Leibfried et al.
(eds), The Oxford Handbook of Transformations of the State (2015) and ‘The Discursive
Process of Legalization. Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case’, International
Organization (2009).
Oliver Eberl is Lecturer in Political Theory and the History of Ideas at Leibniz University
Hannover. Among his publications are ‘Kant on Race and Barbarism: Towards a more
complex view on racism and anti- colonialism in Kant’, in Kantian Review (2019);
‘The Metaphysics of International Law. Kant’s “Unjust Enemy” and the Limitation of
List of Contributors xv
Self-Authorization’, in Sorin Baiasu, Sami Philström, and Howard Williams (eds), Politics
and Metaphysics in Kant (2011).
Anna Geis is Professor of International Security and Peace Studies at the Institute of
International Politics at Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed
Forces in Hamburg (Germany). Among her publications are Recognition in International
Relations. Rethinking a Political Concept in a Global Context (2015, with Christopher
Daase, Caroline Fehl, and Georgios Kolliarakis) and The Janus Face of Liberal Democracies.
Militant ‘Forces for Good’ (2013, with Harald Müller and Niklas Schörnig).
Aimee Genell is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of West Georgia. She is
the author of ‘The Well-defended Domains: Eurocentric International Law and the Making
of the Ottoman Office of Legal Counsel’, Journal of Ottoman and Turkish Studies (2016) and
‘Ottoman Autonomous Provinces and the Problem of “Semi-Sovereignty” in International
Law’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies (2016). She is completing her manuscript,
Empire by Law: The Ottoman Origins of the Mandates System in the Middle East.
Sohail H. Hashmi is Professor of International Relations on the Alumnae Foundation and
Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts. He is the
editor of Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and
Exchanges (2012).
Axel Heck is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the Institute of Political
Science at the University of Kiel. He has published respectively in the European Journal
of International Relations, International Studies Perspectives, and the Zeitschrift für
Internationale Beziehungen.
Thomas Hippler is Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at University
of Normandy in Caen. His publications include Citizens, Soldiers, and National
Armies: Military Service in France and Germany, 1789– 1830 (2007); Bombing the
People: Giulio Douhet and the Foundations of Air-Power Strategy, 1884–1939 (2013); and
Governing from the Skies: A Global History of Aerial Bombing (2017).
Isabel V. Hull is the John Stambaugh Professor of History (retired) at Cornell University.
A German historian, she is the author of The Entourage of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1982); Sexuality,
State and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815 (1996); Absolute Destruction: Military
Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany (2004); and most recently, A Scrap
of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law in the First World War (2014), which was
awarded the certificate of merit from the American Society of International Law.
Anthony F. Lang, Jr is a Professor of International Political Theory at the University of
St Andrews, where he has been since 2004. He writes on global constitutionalism, the
just war tradition, and international political theory more widely. He has published the
books Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention (2002); Punishment, Justice
and International Relations: Ethics and Order after the Cold War (2008); and International
Political Theory: An Introduction (2014), along with eight edited volumes and numerous
articles and chapters.
xvi List of Contributors
16 books and more than 100 scholarly journal articles and book chapters. His most recent
volume is Constructions of Terrorism (2017, co-edited with R. Burchill and S. Englund).
Benno Teschke is a Professor in the Department of International Relations and former
Director of the Centre for Advanced International Theory (2016–2019) at the University of
Sussex. He is the author of The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern
International Relations (2003), awarded the 2004 Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial
Prize. His recent publications include a debate with Gopal Balakrishnan in the New Left
Review on Marxism and Carl Schmitt and ‘Carl Schmitt’s Concepts of War: A Categorical
Failure’, in Jens Meierhenrich and Oliver Simons (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Carl
Schmitt (2016).
Anuschka Tischer is a Full Professor in Early Modern History at the University of
Würzburg (Germany). Among her publications are books on the French Diplomacy at the
Congress of Westphalia (1999), on Justifications of War in Early Modern Europe (2012),
and (together with Derek Croxton) a Dictionary on the Peace of Westphalia (2002).
Miloš Vec is Professor for European Legal and Constitutional History at the University
of Vienna and Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM). Among
his publications on the history of international law are The Transformation of Foreign
Policy: Drawing and Managing Boundaries (2016, with Andreas Fahrmeir and Gunther
Hellmann); Paradoxes of Peace in 19th Century Europe (2015, with Thomas Hippler); and
‘From the Congress of Vienna to the Paris Peace Treaties of 1919’, in Bardo Fassbender and
Anne Peters (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012).
Wolfgang Wagner is Professor of International Security at the Department of Political
Science and Public Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Relevant publications
include The Democratic Politics of Military Interventions. Political Parties, Contestation, and
Decisions to Use Force Abroad (2020) and ‘War and Punitivity under Anarchy’, European
Journal of International Security (2018, with Wouter Werner).
Nina Wilén is Director for the Africa Programme at the Egmont Institute for International
Relations and Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at Lund University.
Dr Wilén’s areas of expertise include peacekeeping, peacebuilding, security sector reform,
and gender and the military. She has published extensively on these topics and is also the
author of Justifying Interventions in Africa: (De)Stabilizing Sovereignty in Liberia, Burundi
and the Congo (2012).
1
The Justification of War and International
Order: From Past to Present
Hendrik Simon and Lothar Brock
This book departs from a simple but momentous observation: the history of war is also
a history of its justification. The use of force in international relations has always been
accompanied by political, scholarly, and public discourses on its appropriateness. This
is to say that the justification of the use of force is tied inextricably to its contestation
because there would be no need for justifying the use of force if the latter were not re-
garded as basically problematic. Accordingly, the justification of certain wars entails a
critique of war in general. We understand the unity of the justification and the critique
of the use of force both in political practice and academic theory-building as constitu-
tive for the emergence of international order.1
Since the justification and the critique of the use of force involve normative judge-
ment, international order rests on a paradoxical, perhaps even dialectical2 relationship
between war and normativity: war challenges and drives the formation of interna-
tional order as an ‘order of justification’.3 Therefore, the history of the modern inter-
national order first and foremost can be told as a genealogy of endeavours to facilitate
the use of force and to hedge it. This way the book addresses the interaction between
the justification of specific wars and the formation of international order as offering a
frame of reference for the justification and critique of war as such.
As we pursue this issue, we proceed on the assumption that contrary to realist claims
in International Law (IL), International Relations (IR), or International History, the
justification of war rarely happens simply as empty ‘propaganda’.4 Throughout history
even powerful actors tend to refer to the language of normativity to justify their forceful
acts. By doing so, they (voluntarily or involuntarily) contribute to the emergence of
1 R. Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant
(1999); S.C. Neff, War and the Law of Nations: A General History (2005); O’Connell, ‘Peace and War’, in B.
Fassbender and A. Peters (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2nd ed., 2014)
272; Lesaffer, ‘Too Much History: From War as Sanction to the Sanctioning of War’, in M. Weller (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (2015) 35.
2 Benjamin, ‘Critique of Violence’, reprinted in P. Demetz (ed.), Walter Benjamin, Reflections: Essays,
Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings (1978) 277; M. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures
at the Collège de France 1975–1976, ed. by A.I. Davidson (2003); H. Joas and W. Knöbl, War in Social
Thought: Hobbes to the Present (2013); J. Bartelson, War in International Thought (2018).
3 R. Forst, Normativity and Power. Analyzing Social Orders of Justification (2017).
4 W.G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, translated and revised by M. Byers (2000), at 531.
Hendrik Simon and Lothar Brock, The Justification of War and International Order: From Past to Present In: The Justification of
War and International Order. Edited by: Lothar Brock and Hendrik Simon, Oxford University Press (2021).
© the many contributors. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198865308.003.0001
4 Justification of War and International Order
zwischen Souveränität und korporativem Selbstverständnis (2012), at 22, 220 f.; see also the contribution by
Anuschka Tischer in this volume. For the concept of ‘Kommunikationsgemeinschaften’ from a philosophical
perspective of discourse ethics see K.-O. Apel, Transformation der Philosophie—Band II: Das Apriori der
Kommunikationsgemeinschaft (1999).
6 See also Tischer in this volume.
7 H. Bull, The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics (2nd ed., 1995), at 180–83; Neff, above
note 1; C. Peevers, The Politics of Justifying Force: the Suez Crisis, the Iraq War, and International Law (2013);
Brock and Simon, ‘Die Selbstbehauptung und Selbstgefährdung des Friedens als Herrschaft des Rechts.
Eine endlose Karussellfahrt? (The Self-Assertion and Self-Destruction of Peace as Rule of Law. Riding a
Merry-Go-Round?)’, 59 Politische Vierteljahresschrift (2018) 269 ; H. Simon, Der Mythos vom ‘freien Recht
zum Krieg’. Zu einer Genealogie der modernen Kriegslegitimation (forthcoming).
8 R. Forst and K. Günther (eds), Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven
Organization (1998) 887, at 891; Jepperson, Wendt, and Katzenstein, ‘Norms, Identity, and Culture in
National Security’, in P.J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World
Politics (1995), at 54.
10 On norms in International Relations, see ibid., and F. Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decisions, On the
Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Society (1991); Wendt,
‘Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, 46 International Organization
(1992) 391; Checkel, ‘The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory’, 50 World Politics 2 (1998)
324; A. Wiener, The Invisible Constitution of Politics. Contested Norms and International Encounters (2008).
A Genealogical Approach 5
scientifically in its historical context. Due to the ambiguity of norms as political in-
struments and determining factors structuring political discourse, international order
is always contested and thus changes over time. The conceptualization of this change
depends on the basic theoretical or ideological preferences of the observer. From a re-
alist point of view, the change of international orders understood as orders of the jus-
tification of the use of force can be expected to be confined to the form of international
politics while its substance as politics under anarchy persists.11 From a rationalist-
institutionalist viewpoint, normative change responds to the necessities of reducing
transaction costs in a world of ever-increasing complexity.12
Critical scholars rather emphasize the ideological bias accompanying both these
approaches. While the materialists within their ranks may address normative
change as an issue of re-arranging the political economy of international relations
(see Benno Teschke in this volume),13 those building on basic ideas of the European
Enlightenment on the one hand,14 its postmodern and postcolonial critics on the
other,15 would rather look for the emergence of an international rule of law as an inter-
national order16 reducing but also reproducing the arbitrary use of force. Under this
third perspective, international law functions as a ‘gentle civilizer of nations’,17 and at
11 C. von Clausewitz, On War (1832, reprinted 1976), at 605; Lueder, ‘Krieg und Kriegsrecht im
Allgemeinen’, in F. von Holtzendorff (ed.), Handbuch des Völkerrechts (1889) 169; Schmitt, ‘The Turn to
the Discriminating Concept of War’ (1938), in C. Schmitt, Writings on War, trans. by T. Nunan (2011), 30;
Morgenthau, ‘Positivism, Functionalism, and International Law’, 34 American Journal of International Law
(1940) 260; K.N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (1979); W.G. Grewe, Friede Durch Recht? (1985); see
also Jütersonke, ‘Realist Approaches to International Law’, in A. Orford and F. Hoffmann (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of the Theory of International Law (2016) 327.
12 R.O. Keohane, Complexity (1980); Ikenberry, ‘The End of Liberal International Order?’, 94 International
Affairs (2018) 7.
13 R.W. Cox with T.J. Sinclair, Approaches to World Order (1999); Knox, ‘Marxist Approaches to
International Law’, in Orford and Hoffmann, above note 11, 306; B.S. Chimni, International Law and
World Order. A Critique of Contemporary Approaches (2nd ed., 2017), at 440; see also the contributions by
Mallavarapu, Teschke, and Chimni in this volume.
14 I. Kant, Project for a Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (1795, reprinted 1891), at 99; H. Wehberg,
Die Aechtung des Krieges. Eine Vorlesung an der Haager Völkerrechtsakademie und am ‘Institut Universitaire
de Hautes Etudes Internationales’(Genf) (1930); H. Kelsen, Peace through Law (1944); Habermas, ‘Kant’s
Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight’, in J. Bohman and M. Lutz-
Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (1997) 113; H. Williams, Kant and the
End of War: A Critique of Just War Theory (2012); see also the contribution by Oliver Eberl in this volume.
15 Benjamin, above note 2; Foucault, above note 2; Derrida, ‘Force de loi: Le “fondement mystique de
l’autorité”/Force of Law: The “Mytical Foundation of Authority” ’, 11 Cardozo Law Review (1990) 919; G.
Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998); A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and
the Making of International Law (2004); Pahuja, ‘The Postcoloniality of International Law’, 46 Harvard
International Law Journal (2006) 459; C. Menke, Recht und Gewalt (2012); D. Loick, Juridismus. Konturen
einer kritischen Theorie des Rechts (2017); see also the contributions by Mallavarapu, Becker Lorca, Benton,
Chimni, Hippler, and Lange in this volume.
16 Hobbes developed the idea that the domestic state of nature could be overcome through the legalization
of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Kant took up this idea but realized that the Hobbesian
approach could not simply be projected onto the system of states. His contribution to establishing a critical
tradition in international law consists in taking up the need for legalization of international relations but
linking it to domestic reform and the universal rights of people. Legalization in this understanding does not
result in offending all war but in approaching peace as a piecemeal process. See also Habermas, above note
14, and Eberl in this volume.
17 M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law. 1870–1960
(2002).
Other documents randomly have
different content
In following up this fistula care must be taken not to injure the
facial artery, the facial vein, or Stenon’s duct. Once the bone is
exposed the disease can be attacked in the depths. The diseased
interior is cut away by means of a special curette, all affected
portions being removed, and an iodine or iodoform dressing is then
applied.
The operation is extremely troublesome, owing to the enormous
bleeding, and sometimes it is impossible to carry out successfully, as
in the case of old-standing and extensive lesions. To ensure recovery
under such circumstances, it is necessary to remove a portion of the
branch of the jaw, and this, though quite possible from the scientific
standpoint, would not be worth while in an animal, the value of
which is usually small.
Curettage of the bone is only of value in dealing with recent
lesions, and even then should not be practised except in the case of
animals which the owners particularly desire to keep.
In cases of actinomycosis of the upper jaw surgical treatment is
just as difficult as in the lower jaw, and calls for similar precautions.
The diseased portions of bone having been removed, the cavity is
plugged with iodoform or cotton wool, or a dressing saturated with
boric acid and iodoform.
In all surgical operations it is important not to injure the dental
arteries or nerves, or the alveolo-dental periosteum.
TUBERCULOSIS.
Tuberculosis is a contagious disease produced by the action of
Koch’s bacillus. It is common to man and all domesticated animals,
but it specially affects animals of the bovine species. Its existence has
long been recognised, although in oxen it was formerly confounded
with the lesions of peripneumonia and echinococcosis.
It was not until the beginning of the nineteenth century that
Laënnec (1811) described the tuberculous lesion from the anatomical
and pathological standpoint. Gürlt pointed out for the first time in
1831 the similarity, the identity in fact, of tuberculous lesions in man
and the ox.
In 1865 Villemin showed that tuberculosis could be conveyed from
animal to animal, always producing similar lesions, and in 1868
Chauveau proved that, in the calf, infection might arise simply from
the eating of tuberculous material.
At a somewhat later date doubts were entertained regarding the
identity of human and bovine tuberculosis. Virchow denied the
identity of the two diseases on the basis of a comparative study of the
lesions. His opinion, however, has not prevailed, and the doctrine of
the identity of tuberculosis in mammals still appears probable, in
spite of the recent declarations of Koch (1901).
Causation. Tuberculosis is due solely to the activity of the
tubercle bacillus. In 1884 Koch isolated and cultivated this bacillus in
living animals, and always reproduced typical tuberculous lesions by
injecting cultures. In 1887 Nocard and Roux described a rapid
method of cultivating the bacillus, and in 1890 Koch announced the
discovery of tuberculin.
The tubercle bacillus assumes the form of a little rod, five or six
micromillimètres in length, and ·03 to ·05µ in thickness. It has a
special staining reaction when treated with Ehrlich’s or Ziehl’s
solution. It grows between 98° and 104° Fahr. (37° and 40° C.) in
various artificial media containing glycerine.
Healthy subjects become infected by the accidental entrance of
germs into their bodies, either by the respiratory and digestive tracts,
or through solutions of continuity in the skin.
The material from tuberculous centres is virulent, whether
consisting of sputum or discharge, saliva, fæces, urine, milk, etc., or
tuberculous tissues derived from the different viscera.
The blood and muscular tissues are not always virulent, even in
cases of generalised tuberculosis.
The virulent organisms usually enter the body through the
lymphatic system; invasion proceeds from the point inoculated
towards the nearest lymphatic glands and thence along the chain of
lymphatic vessels, and the lesions extend, attacking the internal
organs more or less rapidly. The body does not necessarily become
fatally infected as a consequence of accidental or even experimental
infection, for the bacillus may itself be destroyed by the phagocytes,
or the lesion may remain purely local.
Although tuberculosis is the gravest and most widespread disease
on the surface of the globe, its contagious character is relatively little
marked, a fact which has unfortunately led to its receiving little
attention in ordinary life.
Contagion is usually the result of cohabitation, although contact
between diseased and healthy subjects for a period of some days or
even weeks does not seem sufficient to produce the disease. Nocard
has fixed a mean period of five to six months as necessary for the
contraction of the disease by bovine animals, and Moussu has
arrived at almost identical results by placing tuberculous and healthy
cows together in a byre reserved for such researches. In this
connection, however, very great differences of individual
susceptibility exist, and these are difficult to appreciate in the
present state of our knowledge. It thus happens that an animal of
vigorous appearance and in good condition may easily contract
tuberculosis, whilst a thinner and less vigorous one will resist it for a
comparatively long time.
Speaking generally, it may be said that young animals contract
tuberculosis by cohabitation in infected places more easily than adult
or aged ones, and the fact that old animals contribute the larger
number of cases is to some extent due to their having in the course of
their lives been more exposed to continued or successive infection.
Contagion does not occur in byres unless as the result of the
presence of animals with open tuberculous lesions, such as caverns
in the lungs, tuberculous bronchitis with ulceration of the mucous
membrane, tuberculous metritis, enteritis, etc. The virulent germs
are expelled in the saliva, nasal discharge, excrement, etc., and are
distributed over the forage, manure, litter, and in the drinking water;
after desiccation they may be spread by currents of air.
The mangers, racks, drinking pails, and various stable utensils
become permanently contaminated, the air of the cowsheds contains
virulent dust, and the animals there confined are continually exposed
to infection either through the respiratory or digestive passages.
Contamination through the respiratory tract is by far the most
frequent cause of the evil, and recent experiments at Pouilly-le-Fort
(1900) have shown how easy it is to convey the disease
experimentally by inhalation.
Patients suffering from closed tuberculous lesions of the pleura,
pericardium, spleen, peritoneum, etc., do not spread the bacilli.
Healthy animals may remain in contact with them without danger,
but it is well to remember that such cases are quite exceptional. As a
rule the lesions are of a mixed character, and the general principle
may be laid down that cohabitation of any duration with tuberculous
subjects is dangerous.
Contagion spreads more easily, in proportion to the number of
tuberculous subjects in a given byre, to the total number of animals
in a herd, and to the neglect of cleanliness, good feeding, ventilation,
etc.
Life in the open air and at grass greatly diminishes the chances of
contagion. The virulent products are then disseminated in all
directions and are soon destroyed by the general atmospheric
conditions. Close confinement in ill-ventilated stables, on the
contrary, strongly tends to the propagation and development of
tuberculosis.
In calves infection may occur through the alimentary tract by
means of tuberculous milk, whether such milk is obtained directly
from the udder or out of a pail. The same may be true of young pigs
fed with skimmed milk.
Goats contract tuberculosis somewhat readily by confinement in
byres with tuberculous cows, and Moussu declares that contagion
afterwards spreads just as rapidly among goats as among cows. The
vaunted great resistance of goats to tuberculosis, formerly so often
spoken of, and by some wrongly considered as a condition of
immunity, is deceptive, and if tuberculosis is less frequently seen in
goats, this is solely because goats enjoy the greatest liberty at all
seasons.
On the other hand, the disease is very rarely conveyed to sheep,
even when they are kept for long periods with tuberculous cows.
Moussu found that two years of close cohabitation were necessary for
its development under these conditions.
Heredity is a factor of the highest importance in determining the
causation of tuberculosis. At the present time a tendency exists to
deny this, but such a view is erroneous.
Observation has clearly shown that tuberculosis is rarely conveyed
from the mother to the fœtus, and that practically none of the calves
borne by tuberculous mothers react to tuberculin (95 per cent.:
Nocard and Bang); but even if this is absolutely correct, it only shows
that great benefits might be derived if proper sanitary organisation
and intelligent hygienic conditions in byres were found everywhere
in the country. Unfortunately in practice this is far from being the
case. These non-tuberculous calves are left in common contaminated
byres, where they rapidly become infected and perpetuate the
disease.
Physiologically these facts are easily explained. The placenta
resists the passage of microbes, or at least only allows them to pass
under quite exceptional conditions, and practically only when the
blood-vessels are affected. As, on the other hand, tuberculosis of the
ovaries, Fallopian tubes or uterus generally prevents pregnancy and
causes sterility, there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that
tuberculosis is not hereditary in the strict sense of the term. The
influence of the sire has been invoked, but it has been proved that
direct paternal infection is only possible where ulcerating
tuberculous lesions of the testicle, prostate, or vesiculæ seminales
exist. Such conditions seldom or never occur in the sires of domestic
animals.
As a general rule, therefore, it may be said that tuberculosis is not
hereditary. New-born animals become infected during the months
following birth, either directly through the alimentary tract when the
mothers are suffering from mammary tuberculosis, or, perhaps more
frequently, through the respiratory and digestive tracts.
But although microbic infection is not hereditary, it by no means
follows that the offspring of tuberculous subjects are as well
prepared for the struggle of life as the descendants of healthy
subjects. What is transmitted is a greater tendency to contract the
disease.
This aptitude or predisposition is of such importance that in
Moussu’s opinion it should be regarded as one of the essential factors
in the development of tuberculosis. The cause of tuberculosis is
Koch’s bacillus. It does not always produce its full effects in animals
born of healthy parents; but in one that suffers from a tuberculous
hereditary taint tuberculosis appears.
Physiological and pathological researches cast considerable light
on this question. In tuberculous mothers the organism not only
suffers from the infection, but from a permanent intoxication which
interferes with normal metabolism in the vital organs and the
exchanges between mother and fœtus. If the microbes remain
confined to the system of the mother, their poisons are conveyed by
the blood and pass through the placental barrier. In a greater or less
degree they saturate the tissues of the little creature in process of
development, and communicate to it a peculiar hereditary taint. The
effects of this taint are often noticeable from the moment of birth, for
comparative physiological and pathological investigations have
shown that the tissues of tuberculous animals assimilate given foods
less perfectly and are the seat of greater losses of all kinds than those
of healthy subjects.
Although the disease itself, therefore, is not hereditary, it is
otherwise with the organic taint which plays so important a part in
its development. This organic taint consists in a special condition of
the tissues or cells of the parents, which show a diminished power of
resistance to the action of the germs of tuberculosis; it is therefore
easy to understand how important a part these influences may play
under certain conditions.
Without doubt, in the case of bovine animals, the predisposition
could be neutralised in carefully managed studs by the immediate
isolation of the new-born under conditions which shield them from
tuberculous infection, and experiment has shown the benefits
derived from such precautions; but it must not be forgotten that
intelligently managed studs are the exception, and that for a long
time to come we must in practice take cognisance of the actual
conditions under which the disease develops.
The lesions of tuberculosis vary greatly in appearance, according
to the organs affected, though the method of development is always
identical.
The primary lesion corresponds to what has been termed
tuberculous granulation, or anatomical tubercle properly so called;
this, the macroscopical, pathological entity, assumes the form of a
small prominent centre, semi-transparent, greyish, opaque or
yellowish, according to its age.
These tubercles, produced by the presence of colonies of bacilli,
are due to the defensive reaction of the invaded tissues, which
gradually undergo change and are destroyed in a direction radiating
from the centre towards the periphery. The tubercle in itself has no
very specific character—only the bacillus.
The elementary lesion may remain isolated, but very frequently it
is closely surrounded by other similar tubercles, and becomes
enveloped in a common inflammatory area. A large portion of an
organ may appear as if riddled with tubercles of different age and
size, while the interstitial connective tissue reacts and forms fibrous
separating partitions. The general appearance is that described
under the term “diffuse tuberculous infiltration.”
At a still more advanced stage in the development of the disease
conglomerations are produced, consisting of tuberculous masses the
size of a hazel-nut, a walnut, an egg, a man’s fist, or even larger.
These lesions, irrespective of size, undergo caseous degeneration
from the centre towards the periphery.
In exceptional cases the tubercles remain fibrous. More frequently,
particularly in animals of the bovine species, they become infiltrated
with lime salts. Caseous degeneration not only invades the centre of
the tubercles but also the peripheral layers, and sometimes the whole
of a conglomerated mass.
Steadily pursuing their course of pathological development, the
tuberculous masses become softened and are transformed into
tuberculous abscesses, which open towards any free passage, leaving
behind sometimes ulcerations, sometimes caverns of varying sizes,
or blind simple or bifurcated fistulæ.
Recent experiments by Nocard and Rossignol (1900) prove
conclusively that a certain time (always more than a fortnight)
elapses between the moment of entry of the contagion into the
organism and that at which its effects become manifest by furnishing
a reaction to tuberculin. Calcification or softening of the lesions,
moreover, never occurs in less than fifty days.
According to the organs studied, these tuberculous lesions assume
certain appearances, which in each locality seem almost always to be
identical.
Thus, as regards the larynx, trachea, and bronchi, the tubercles
develop in the depths of the mucous membrane, rapidly undergoing
caseous transformation, softening and purulent degeneration, and
producing numerous isolated or confluent ulcerations in the air
passages.
According to the case and the kind of animal affected, the lung
presents either disseminated tuberculous formation, tuberculous
infiltration, tuberculous conglomeration, or cavern formation.
The lung may be affected to such a degree that it appears
incredible that the blood can have been sufficiently aerated to
support life.
The lungs may be transformed into yellowish, caseous, calcareous,
or softened masses enveloped in thick, fibrous, resistant walls. The
intervening pulmonary tissue may be healthy in appearance, or
reddened, congested, and sometimes hepatised.
The pleural, pericardial, and peritoneal membranes may be
covered with exuberant tuberculous lesions, like ripe mulberries, in
consequence of fusion and massing of the tuberculous growths. The
primary tubercles are surrounded with fibrous walls, which
granulate when on the surface of a serous membrane, and impart to
the membrane a vegetative, sometimes villous appearance, and a
colour varying from pink to light or dark red.
The collective lesions lining the cavities are described by butchers
under the significant term of “grapes.” In the interior of these
exuberant masses, which sometimes form layers an inch or more in
thickness, the tuberculous lesions undergo the usual developmental
changes, that is to say, they become caseated or infiltrated with lime
salts, but they do not so readily undergo softening as those of the
lung. The parietal and visceral serous membranes readily become
adherent at numerous points, setting up union between the lung and
the walls of the chest, or the intestine and the walls of the abdomen,
etc.
In the pericardium the vegetations are frequently of a fungoid
character.
Tuberculosis of lymphatic glands sometimes assumes a
disseminated, discrete form or that of a diffuse infiltration, or, again,
in old-standing cases it constitutes a massive tuberculous
conglomeration. In point of fact, the lymphatic glands as such no
longer exist, their tissue having undergone total degeneration; they
are represented only by an enlarged, thick, fibrous shell, forming the
envelope which encloses caseated and calcareous masses of a more
or less soft nature.
Tuberculous infiltration of the submaxillary and sub-parotideal
lymphatic glands interferes with swallowing and breathing,
compresses the pharynx, œsophagus and larynx, and deforms the
head.
Compression of the arteries, veins, nerves, etc., at the entrance to
the chest may cause various symptoms which are not difficult to
interpret. The glands at the entrance to the chest and the whole of
the anterior mediastinum may form a single mass. Lesions in the
posterior mediastinum, however, are of even greater importance and
explain certain symptoms, such as difficulty in swallowing, spasm of
the œsophagus, mechanical contraction of the œsophagus,
permanent tympanites, etc., for which the state of the lungs alone
would not account.
Even when the lungs are unaffected it may happen that the
lymphatic glands of the mediastinum (superior or inferior
œsophageal lymphatic glands) and the bronchial lymphatic glands
may be so diseased that the œsophagus is completely surrounded
and compressed by them, and its function thus seriously impaired
(Fig. 276).
In the abdomen the mesenteric glands are most exposed to
disease, and when infected through the intestinal tract they assume
the form of large flattened masses arranged along the mesentery.
In the digestive tract, as in the trachea and bronchi, tuberculosis
has a marked tendency to assume the ulcerative form. Disseminated
or aggregated tubercles develop in the thickness of the mucous
membrane, and, after rapidly softening, become ulcerated. The
nature of these lesions can only be determined by noting their
character and examining the discharge.
Fig. 276.—Tuberculosis of lymphatics. PG, Left lung; PD, right lung; TT,
tuberculous œsophageal lymph glands; A, aorta; Œ, œsophagus (the lung is
divided transversely near its centre).
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
ebookmass.com