Abstract
This work attempts to understand whether it is possible to talk about the emergence of specific recurring linguistic patterns in UN resolutions, used as a political strategy. The paper presents a comparative analysis between a corpus of resolutions related to the Second Gulf War and to the 2011 North Korean nuclear crisis, focussing on ethic adjectives and preambulatory and operative phrases used in these resolutions. It is attempted to show how vague and weak expressions can be used either to lead to intentionally biased interpretations of the law as was supposed in the Iraqi case, or to mitigate international tensions, though maintaining a firm position against international threats, as supposed for North Korea.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
