Abstract
ABSTRACT Part II of this article develops the argument that in a century of industrialised warfare, the international peace architecture (IPA) was caught in a series of contradictions. It was drawn into a delicate balancing act of expanding rights and decolonizing former empires, building law and international institutions, making peace and managing war. Critical arguments emerged about appropriate responses to these issues, drawing on, but also heavily constrained by, their genesis in the ‘Greats’. Part II of this article examines this contradictory process in greater detail.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
