Volume 63, No. 2 (2025) of the Military Law and the Law of War Review includes an interesting article by Liron A. Libman and Amichai Cohen titled Why do we enforce the law against IHL violations? Reason-giving in Israeli court-martial judgments. Abstract:
This study investigates the perceived purpose of enforcing International Humanitarian Law (IHL, also known as the Laws of Armed Conflict) by examining the underlying values cited in judicial reasoning. While traditional accounts of IHL’s development emphasize humanitarianism, critical theories point to state self-interest, such as the need to control emerging huge national armies in the second half of the 19th century.
To test how these theories are reflected in practice, we conducted a systematic content analysis of 60 years of Israeli courts martial judgments. We analysed how frequently different values (e.g., humanitarian concerns vs. force control) were invoked across different offence categories and over time.
Our findings reveal a significant distinction: humanitarian values are prominent in rulings on offences against life and physical integrity, whereas concerns for controlling military forces dominate property offence cases like pillage. This may imply that neither military self-interest nor humanitarianism can exclusively explain IHL rules and their enforcement. Furthermore, the values cited changed significantly over time, and explicit references to international law were scarce. These trends suggest judges adapt their reasoning to the prevailing Zeitgeist of judicial culture and populist sentiment. This methodology offers a promising approach for uncovering the hidden interests shaping IHL’s application.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).