The Scourge of War

The huge number of security forces stationed around the world as United Nations peace- keepers is second only to the global military deployments of the USA. But most UN peace- keepers come from the emerging powers and developing states that comprise the global South. This is the first book to analyse this phenomenon at the international level. Such unprecedented deployments show that peacekeeping is the most widely tolerated use of force in international affairs today. Far from signalling progress towards global governance, Legions of Peace argues that UN peacekeeping must be understood in the context of continuing economic inequality and the uneven distribution of global power. Philip Cunliffe contends that through UN peace- keeping Western states have used their domination of international institutions to harness the armed forces of the global South. In so doing, Western states seek to reduce the political and military costs of hegemony and stave off their inevitable, long-term decline in power. This strategy has profound political implications. Instead of transcending the 'scourge of war', by globalising peacekeeping the UN has made peace dependent on the extensive and sustained deployment of armed force - a development that bodes ill for the future.

The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem. Edited by Paul Diehl. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 280 pp., $70.00 (ISBN: 0-472-11395-X). In the Preface to The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem , Paul Diehl explains that “the genesis of this collection came from a desire to find new ideas and approaches to understanding international war” (p. xiii). Indeed, the interesting and indepth studies contained in the book present a comprehensive view of the “state of the art” regarding theory and research on conflict, rivalry, and war. Moreover, the four main sections of the book manifest diverse strands of research, different theoretical approaches, and distinct methodological paths to the study of world politics itself. Nonetheless, Diehl dedicates The Scourge of War to J. David Singer. Moreover, the concepts, methods, postulates, and hypotheses developed in Singer's Correlates of War project (Singer and Small 1972; Small and Singer 1982) are revisited throughout the book. It appears that good ideas are like fine wines. They improve with age. The first section of The Scourge of War contains two chapters focused on the evolution of war and conflict. In the first chapter, Claudio Cioffi-Revilla and Manus Midlarsky investigate how power affects the dynamics of confrontation in the most lethal international and civil wars. They search for, and indeed find, uniform patterns—or laws—regarding the onset, fatalities, and duration of these acute events. Shifting from wars to “militarized interstate disputes,” Monica Lagazio and Bruce Russett probe the patterns of dispute initiation. They assert that liberal variables (for example, economic interdependence, democracy, and international organization) supplement realist ones (proximity, contiguity, balance of power, and alliances) in explaining the outbreak of such conflicts. Both articles reexamine patterns in the evolution of interstate war and reassess the merits of existing theories in light of current data and new modes of inquiry. The three chapters that make up the second section of the book focus on national …

The story of the founding of the United Nations reflects its complicated ideological foundations. Jan Smuts, who wrote the words into the Charter, was also the premier of white-ruled South Africa. Smuts embodies the dualism that runs through international law itself: the pursuit of the common good is invariably tied to its own interest. It was only through the interventions of the emerging global community, and in particular the developing world—and consequently the repudiation of Smuts and the apartheid policies of his successors—that human rights attained a more universal nature. Human rights have deeper, but also darker, roots than many current accounts would have it.

The Member States of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, meeting in Paris at the twenty-eighth session of the General Conference, from 25 October to 16 November 1995,PreambleBearing in mind that the United Nations Charter states “We, the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, … to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours,”

The challenge of peace is complex and intractable. Much depends on the meaning of the concept and the definition of the term. And in that respect much depends on whether a diplomatic-legal or a sociopolitical approach is adopted. The diplomatic-legal approach is enshrined in the United Nations Charter of 1945. The primary goal of the United Nations is to protect future generations from the scourge of war. The charter bestows on the Security Council the primary responsibility for maintaining, or restoring, international peace and security.

Between 1848 and 1853 a series of major peace congresses was held—in Brussels (1848), Paris (1849), Frankfurt (1850), London (1851), Manchester (1853), and Edinburgh (1853). This midcentury period was one of great confidence and optimism in the likely success of the cause. Indeed, reading the reports of the congresses today, one is struck by the at times naive overoptimism of many delegates. This may in part have been the product of the millenarian atmosphere of the period. However, it has to be said that the congresses were also characterized by a strong sense of the practicality of their proposals and the steady progress toward their goal that implementation of such proposals would achieve. Above all, the efflorescence of the peace movement in the short six years around the midcentury was the product of a class confidence, of a momentary triumphalism that inspired a section of the bourgeoisie to believe that the scourge of war could be eradicated at last.The nineteenth-century peace movement effectively began with the establishment toward the end of the Napoleonic Wars, independently and virtually simultaneously, of peace societies in the United States and Britain. They were dominated by men of religion, particularly Quakers, and for a quarter of a century their work was essentially that of proselytizing the peace cause through publicity, petitions, and lecture tours. In connection with the last, the London Peace Society sent emissaries on tours of continental Europe in the early 1840s to spread the peace message.

The Scourge of War: New Extensions on an Old Problem. Edited by Paul F. Diehl. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. 280p. $70.00. This volume is dedicated to J. David Singer, and it is designed to be a collective reflection on Singer's work and the Correlates of War (COW) research program that he initiated more than 40 years ago. It accomplishes much more than simply revisiting or lauding previous COW research, however. As Paul Diehl (p. xi) notes in the preface, the “collection is one in which leading scholars look back in order to move the study of international relations forward.” Because it is so successful in this challenging task, the volume deserves a wide audience.

Back in 1949, and thus only one year after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions were adopted, providing a strong signal for a new world order created after 1945 with the United Nations at their centre and combining as their goals both the maintenance of peace and security and the protection of human rights, but also recognising, realistically, that succeeding generations had so far not yet been saved from the scourge of war. Hence, the continued need for rules governing, and limiting, the means and methods of warfare once an armed conflict has erupted. At the same time, the international community has unfortunately not been able so far to fully safeguard individual human rights, its efforts to that effect and the continuous development of international human rights law over the years notwithstanding.

This study deals with several etiquettes of war stipulated in Hanafi jurisprudence and international humanitarian law. Moreover, this study aims to show the contribution of Hanafi jurists to jurisprudence related to international humanitarian law, such as provisions related to the protection of civilians, the restriction of the warring parties’ freedom to choose methods of war, and the protection of military victims. As for the approach that was adopted in dealing with the issues of this study, it is represented in the descriptive, deductive, and comparative approaches. In this study, I concluded several results that show the agreement between international humanitarian law and the Hanafi jurists on the need to protect the victims of armed conflicts from the scourge of war, and to restrict the use of war methods in a way that does not contradict with values and morals. One of the recommendations of this study is to invite researchers and those interested in international humanitarian law compared to Islamic law, not to be limited to the generalities of Islamic law, but rather deepen the means of comparison to the level of jurisprudence schools because of the pioneering jurisprudence that it contains.

SINCE the day when the German Foreign Minister, Walter Rathenau, closed his celebrated speech at the Genoa Confer ence with the impressive words Peace! and since Locarno and Thoiry laid the foundations for the triumph of conciliation, it has been impossible to silence the cry of the European peoples for enduring peace and security. Indeed, the peace movement among the nations of Europe in general has been gaining ground steadily. The underlying principle of the League of Nations, however imperfectly realized in practice, aims at nothing more than the settlement of differences of opinion between peo ples in a peaceful way. Unfortunately in many parts of the conti nent there are unmistakable sources of danger; to those already present before the war, the unhappy Treaty of Versailles has added. Whoever is earnest in wishing for European peace, for world peace, must keep close watch on these points of tension. In particular, who can ignore the danger of military complications between France and Germany which exists today as a result of a whole series of phases in the historical and cultural develop ment of the two nations, as a result even of their geographical situation? For over a thousand years they have waged a bitter struggle, with ever varying fortune. Here is always a glowing spark which only too easily can be fanned into a fierce destroying flame unless it is held rigidly under control. The German people want peace, with that earnestness, that whole-heartedness, that integrity of mind which is characteristic of them. They want peace, not because they are weak, but because they have a clear realization of how intensely the cultural progress of humanity suffers from the scourge of war, and that even the victors do not escape! The German people has shown its will to peace in more than words. It has carried out the disarmament im posed upon it so thoroughly that even the Allied Disarmament Commission has been constrained to acknowledge the fact. It has lived up to the spirit of the Treaty of Locarno and joined the League of Nations. If all the German cabinets since the signature of the Versailles Treaty are considered one by one, it will be seen that not only have they announced their unfaltering devotion to peace but have demonstrated their full sincerity in action.

Taming Democracy: Codifying the Laws of War to Restore the European Order, 1856-1874

The responsibility to protect is both a political and a legal concept inspired by the United Nations commitment to protect humanity from war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. The core of the responsibility to protect consists of a set of principles that were approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 and strengthened in 2009 and 2011. In essence, the responsibility to protect comes down to the commitment of the international community to protect the population of a state against war crimes or mass atrocities when the concerned state is unable or unwilling to fulfill this mission. In this article we aim to determine the genesis, content and role of the principle of the responsibility to protect in the system of international law, as well as to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of this instrument in maintaining international peace, security and stability.

The world in which we live is fraught with complicated contradictions and international problems. But in the view of the People's Republic of China, there are two principal global and strategic issues: the East-West issue, or the issue of peace, and the North-South issue, or the issue of development. The East-West issue arose from the establishment of the two major militarypolitical blocs after the Second World War. The two blocs are in direct confrontation in Europe, but their existence affects areas beyond Europe. The key to East-West relations is the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. Relying on their great pre-eminence in economic and military strength over other countries, the two superpowers are engaged in fierce rivalry in all spheres, causing sustained turbulence in the international situation. The all-round arms race between them is ever escalating, from conventional to nuclear weapons, from land and sea to outer space. This has posed a serious threat to world peace and to the security of all nations. In our world today, the United States and the Soviet Union are the only two countries which are capable of fighting a new world war. In this sense, the global issue of peace or war is closely linked with the issue of East-West relations. Having suffered enough from the scourge of war, the people of all countries crave peace. They don't want war. They are against fighting a war. On this major issue which involves the future of mankind more and more countries, large countries as well as small and medium-sized, non-aligned as well as aligned, are determined to take their destiny into their own hands. They are actively taking all kinds of action in an effort to maintain world peace. These countries and peoples eagerly hope that East-West relations may be eased, and they demand that the superpowers must stop their arms race and carry out genuine disarmament. It can be said that although the danger of war still exists, the forces deterring war and safeguarding peace are also steadily growing. This is an important trend in the world situation today. The essence of the North-South issue is the widening economic gap between the developing and the developed countries. There are various reasons for this gap, an important one being the existence of the out-dated international economic order which is unjust and inequitable. The world today has increasingly become a closely linked whole. It is impossible for economic growth in the developed countries to continue on the basis of the continuing poverty of the developing countries. Without economic growth in those areas-which are inhabited by three-quarters of the world's population, the developed countries will face difficulties in getting resources, markets and outlets of capital, and hence damage to their own economic interests. The logic is obvious. The relations between the developed and the developing countries should be equal, mutually beneficial and complementary. The developed countries need the

I DID NOT KNOW JOHN HOLMES , BUT I THINK I WOULD HAVE LIKED HIM . H IS long service to academia, the United Nations, and the government of Canada is emblematic of the ties that the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) seeks to foster between research and practice. And his own humility and humor provide inspiration to us all. I recently reread his 1988 keynote address, “Looking Backwards and For wards.” 1 Holmes perceived—in those dying days of the Cold War—that the UN had reached a crossroads in its history. But he also cautioned that a mo ment filled with promise and uncertainty should not give way to reinvention without a due understanding of what had come before. Those times—thought by some to herald a “new world order”—required visionary leadership in global affairs. They offered the UN a chance to reclaim the purpose of its founders. Our own times, you might think, bring more uncertainty than prom ise. It is true that the foundations of the global order are creaking under the weight of myriad challenges—from militant extremism to climate change. Such phenomena not only confront us with direct threats, but also risk an ero sion of our faith in the potential of the UN to act in the interest of the global collective good. It seems that, while the need for more effective global gover nance is more pressing than ever, those actors with the potential to provide it are faltering. Indeed, global governance, a term itself emblematic of the postNCold War order and the beginning of the new century, is in a state of deep crisis. Just as in 1988, the challenge falls to us to renew the promise of the world organization. Holmes and his colleagues undertook to “save succeeding gen erations from the scourge of war.” 2 This timeless duty is now ours.

The preamble to the United Nations Charter states: We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind There can be no question that, if we remember our humanity, war is wrong in principle and nearly always wrong in practice. It involves inflicting, or trying to inflict, harm to others that one would not like to have done to oneself. While war may strengthen bonds within the in-group, it contravenes the principle of prosocial reciprocity so far as the out-group is concerned.