The individualization of war : from war to policing in the regulation of armed conflicts
Law and war
Stanford : Stanford law books, 2014
In this essay, the author argues that the "humanization of international humanitarian law" marks a shift from collectivism toward cosmopolitan individualism in the regulation of wartime conduct. In other words, wartime regulation has evolved from a predominantly state-oriented set of obligations - which viewed war as an intercollective effort - to a more individual-focused regime; and consequently, these wartime obligations are owed not only to other parties to the conflict but, at least in aspiration, to the entire international community. The author demonstrates how various contemporary debates over particular doctrines and practices of war both reflect and refract the overarching question of the collective or individualized nature of war. Among these debates are the distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello; the application of the principle of proportionality in the jus in bello; the project of international criminal law; reparations to victims of war ; and detention of terrorists. By framing these issues as implicating the indvidual or collective nature of war, the tradeoffs that exist between a cosmopolitan or national view of war are highlighted.