Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T08:15:34.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Limits to the Scope of Humanity as a Constraint on the Conduct of War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2024

Matt Killingsworth
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Tim McCormack
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access

Summary

Accounts of the historical origins of international humanitarian law (IHL) routinely assume that the emergence of humanity as a constraint on the waging of war, coinciding as it did with a general rise of humanitarianism in the nineteenth century, reflected a growing commitment to a universally shared notion of human dignity. That assumption is fallacious. Those who have been mythologised as champions of humanity as constraint, including Henri Dunant and Francis Lieber, were products of their era. IHL’s ‘original sin’ was to only extend constraints of humanity to so-called civilised nations in their wars inter se. These same constraints were not intended to apply to indigenous and other colonised populations – those assumed to be ‘uncivilised’ – often referred to as such with the pejoratives ‘savages’ and/or ‘barbarians’. The exclusion of emergent constraints on the grounds of racism and colonialism is evident in the language of the early IHL treaties. It has taken many decades for the international community to overcome the exclusions of the legal protection of emergent IHL and some would argue that the tendency for exclusion is still evident in the dehumanising of the other in the Global War on Terror.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attwood, B., and Markus, A. (2007). The 1967 Referendum: Race, Power and the Australian Constitution, 2nd ed., Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Bass, G. (2000). Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bassiouni, M. C. (1992). Crimes against Humanity in International Criminal Law, Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (1970). Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Carnahan, B. M. (1998). Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: the origins and limits of the principle of military necessity. American Journal of International Law, 92, 213–31.Google Scholar
Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of War and on Enforcement of Penalties (1920). Report presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference 29 March 1919. American Journal of International Law, 14(1/2), 95154.Google Scholar
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, opened for signature 9 December 1948 (entered into force 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277.Google Scholar
Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, opened for signature 29 July 1899 (entered into force 4 September 1900).Google Scholar
Cove, J. J. (1995). What the Bones Say: Tasmanian Aborigines, Science and Domination, Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Curthoys, A. (2005). Raphaël Lemkin’s ‘Tasmania’: An Introduction. Patterns of Prejudice, 39(2), 162–69.Google Scholar
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight, opened for signature 29 November 1868, [1901] ATS 125 1 (entered into force 11 December 1868) (St Petersburg Declaration).Google Scholar
Dunant, H. (1959). A Memory of Solferino, International Committee of the Red Cross.Google Scholar
Eyffinger, A. (1999). The 1899 Hague Peace Conference: The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World, Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Ferrell, C. L. (2006). The Abolitionist Movement, Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Gill, T. D. (2016). Classifying the conflict in Syria. International Law Studies, 92, 353–80.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. B. (1898). The evolution of the Dum Dum bullet. British Medical Journal, 1, 1250–51.Google Scholar
Hartigan, R. S. (1983). Lieber’s Code and the Law of War, Precedent Publishing.Google Scholar
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L., eds. (2005). Customary International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, ch. 1 (rule 70).Google Scholar
Higgins, A. P. (1909). The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences Concerning the Laws and Usages of War: Texts of Conventions with Commentaries, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobhouse, E. (1902). The Brunt of the War and Where It Fell, Methuen & Company.Google Scholar
International Committee for the Red Cross (2009). The ICRC: Its Mission and Its Work.Google Scholar
af Jochnick, C. and Normand, R. (1994). The legitimation of violence: a critical history of the laws of war. Harvard International Law Journal, 35, 4995.Google Scholar
Kalshoven, F. (2016). The history of international humanitarian law treaty-making. In Liivoja, R. and McCormack, T., eds., The Routledge Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Routledge.Google Scholar
Ki-moon, B. Opening Remarks to Member States on Preparations for the World Humanitarian Summit. Speech delivered at UN Headquarters, New York, 4 April 2016.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2004). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. M. (1995). The Struggle for Equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mégret, F. (2006). From ‘savages’ to ‘unlawful combatants’: a postcolonial look at international law’s ‘other’. In Orford, A., ed., International Law and Its Others, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, S. M. (2010). Duty or crime? Defining acceptable behaviour in the British army in 1899–1902. Journal of British Studies, 49, 311–31.Google Scholar
Miller, S. M. and Miller, J. (2019). Moral and legal prohibitions against pillage in the context of the 1899 Hague Convention and the South African War. War in History, 26(2), 185203.Google Scholar
Neuman, N. (2004). Applying the rule of proportionality: force protection and cumulative assessment in international law and morality. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 7, 79112.Google Scholar
Normand, R. and af Jochnick, C. (1994). The legitimation of violence: a critical analysis of the Gulf War. Harvard International Law Journal, 35, 387416.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. W. (1927). The origin of ‘manifest destiny’. The American Historical Review, 32(4), 795–98.Google Scholar
Pretorius, F. (2010). The white concentration camps of the Anglo-Boer War: a debate without end. Historia, 55, 3449.Google Scholar
The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference, First Commission: Third Meeting on 31 May 1899.Google Scholar
Reynolds, H. (2016). Unnecessary Wars, NewSouth Publishing.Google Scholar
Reynolds, H., and Clements, N. (2021). Tongerlongeter: First Nations Leader and Tasmanian War Hero, NewSouth Publishing.Google Scholar
Ringmar, E. (2009). Francis Lieber, terrorism and the American way of war. Perspectives on Terrorism, 3(4), 5260.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. (2019). Foundational myths in the laws of war: the 1863 Lieber Code, and the 1864 Geneva Convention. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 20, 158.Google Scholar
Ryan, L. (2012). Tasmanian Aborigines: A History since 1803. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Salim Ahmed Hamdan v Donald Rumsfeld et al., 528 U.S. 557 (2006), no. 05.184, 29 June 2006.Google Scholar
Sands, P. (2016). East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Schmidt, B. C. Jr (1982). Principle and prejudice: the Supreme Court and race in the progressive era. Part 1: The Heydey of Jim Crow. Columbia Law Review, 82, 444524.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. N. (2010). Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving the Delicate Balance. Virginia Journal of International Law, 50(4), 795839.Google Scholar
Scott, J. B. (1920). The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference, London.Google Scholar
Spies, S. B. (2001). The Hague Convention of 1899 and the Boer Republics. In Pretorius, F., ed., Scorched Earth, Cape Town.Google Scholar
Spiers, E. M. (1975). The use of the Dum Dum bullet in colonial warfare. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 4(1), 314.Google Scholar
Surridge, K. (2012). An example to be followed or a warning to be avoided? The British, Boers and guerrilla warfare, 1900–1902. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 23, 608–26.Google Scholar
Sykes, Jr, Champion, L. N., , H. R. and Fouty, W. J. (1988). Dum-dums, hollow-points, and devastators: techniques designed to increase wounding potential of bullets. The Journal of Trauma, 28, 618–23.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (III), UN GAOR, 3rd session, 183rd plenary meeting, UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948).Google Scholar
United Nations News. Ban, Red Cross Chief Express Concern Over ‘Brazen and Brutal’ Erosion of Respect for Humanitarian Law, 31 October 2015.Google Scholar
United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe We Will Not Accept the Erosion of Humanity which we see in the World Today, 5 April 2016.Google Scholar
United States of America v Araki (Judgment) (International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 4 November 1948). In Boister, N. and Cryer, R. (2008). Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictments and Judgments, Oxford University Press, p. 79.Google Scholar
U.S. War Department (1863). General Orders No. 100, 24 April 1863.Google Scholar
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969 (entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.Google Scholar
Windschuttle, K. (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History: Volume I, Van Diemen’s Land 1803–1847, Macleay Press.Google Scholar
Witt, J. F. (2011). The dismal history of the laws of war. University of California Irvine Law Review, 1, 895.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×