Abstract
AbstractThe individualisation of punishment is a key element in liberal narratives about international law and international relations. This narrative has become an integral part of positive international law, especially the regimes governing the use of force and the prosecution of an international crimes. Rather than punishing states or entire societies, liberals claim, punishment has become restricted to those who incurred individual guilt. To liberals, the individualisation of punishment is part of a larger process of enlightenment and civilisation that has helped to fence atavisms like revenge. We do not question the emergence of an ever more sophisticated system of individual punishment in international law. However, we argue that punitivity has been more difficult to fully channel towards individuals and away from collectives than claimed. To be sure, punitive language has by and large been banned from the laws of armed conflict. We argue, however, that the absence of a punitive vocabulary does not equal the absence of punitivity. In contrast, current state practices of using armed force are still imbued with punitivity, however silenced in the current legal framework and thus pushed underground. Realising the presence of a punitive undercurrent, we argue, adds to a more comprehensive understanding of contemporary state practices.
Highlights
On 7 April 2017 and on 14 April 2018, cruise missiles were fired into Syria by the United States and, in 2018, by France and the United Kingdom
The individualisation of punishment is a key element in liberal narratives about international law and international relations
This narrative has become an integral part of positive international law, especially the regimes governing the use of force and the prosecution of an international crimes
Summary
On 7 April 2017 and on 14 April 2018, cruise missiles were fired into Syria by the United States and, in 2018, by France and the United Kingdom. The 2017 strikes reportedly killed six soldiers and possibly civilians.. The 2017 strikes reportedly killed six soldiers and possibly civilians.1 This use of force was justified as a response to the use of chemical weapons a few days earlier, which, according to Western leaders, ‘must not go unpunished’.2. European Journal of International Security 311 the strikes were ‘a clear message to anyone who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity’.4. The invocation of the vocabulary of punishment, retribution, and pedagogy deviates from the dominant liberal narrative about international law and international relations, which emphasises the individualisation of punishment. Rather than punishing states or entire societies, liberals claim, punishment has become restricted to those who incurred individual guilt. Punishment is delegated to the criminal justice system, which focuses on individuals, not states as such
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
