Abstract

This contribution is inspired by the thought-provoking article ‘Monopolizing War’ by Eyal Benvenisti and Doreen Lustig. My Reply argues that early 19th-century IHL codification projects in the eyes of European governments did not primarily serve domestic anti-revolutionary purposes. It also takes a somewhat sceptical stance as to the recent scholarly trend, which reduces historical explanations for the development of international law to domestic contexts in one or more powerful states involved in the respective law- and policy-making process. Building on the intriguing historical critique of early IHL’s ‘humanizing substance’ developed in ‘Monopolizing War’ and by referring to more recent IHL codification projects (small arms, nuclear weapons, aerial bombing, autonomous weapons), the second part of the contribution sketches four ‘de-humanizing’ discursive strategies, which arguably haunt international humanitarian law-making until today: (i) cynical window dressing; (ii) constructing an ontological wall; (iii) utilitarian reasoning; and (iv) excluding the periphery.

中文翻译：

---

人道法是假的吗？对Eyal Benvenisti和Doreen Lustig的回复

摘要

这一贡献是受到Eyal Benvenisti和Doreen Lustig发人深思的文章“垄断战争”的启发。我的答复认为，在欧洲政府眼中的1​​9世纪初期国际人道法编纂项目主要不是为国内反革命目的服务。对于最近的学术趋势，它也采取了某种怀疑的态度，这种态度将有关国际法发展的历史解释减少到一个或多个参与各自法律和政策制定过程的强国中的国内情况。借鉴国际人道法在“垄断战争”中发展起来的早期“人性化物质”的有趣历史评论，并参考国际人道法的最新编纂项目（小型武器，核武器，空中轰炸，自主武器），文稿的第二部分概述了四种“非人性化”的话语策略，可以说这些策略困扰着国际人道法制定直到今天：（i）愤世嫉俗的橱窗装饰；（ii）建造本体墙；（iii）功利主义推理；（iv）不包括外围。