ABSTRACT From Paris’ capture of Helen in Homer’s Iliad, and the resulting 10-year war in retaliation, Western literature has a long tradition of narrativising the turn to war as a dispute in service of a woman. Yet in contemporary Western legal accounts it is assumed that legal arch-positivism now governs the decision to go to war, and so any such action can be considered rational and just. However, contemporary turns to war are increasingly invoking just war theory that is wrapped in a similar patriarchal gender narrative. George RR Martin’s ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ evokes the European tradition of war in the middle ages, but also explores modern aspects of liberalism, statehood, and international relations. This paper explores how the turn to war is narrativised and understood by various characters in the novels. It does so in order to demonstrate how calls to war rooted in chivalry and protectionism can gain more currency than those rooted in legalist language, but outlines how this then perpetuates and cements a regressive view of women as passive and helpless. This article ultimately calls for an alternative account of law’s understanding of war which does not invoke the rescuer paradigm, and so offers potential reimagining of contemporary justifications for war.

中文翻译：

---

重新确认并拒绝救援叙事作为战争的动力：用冰与火之歌为女人战争

摘要从巴黎在荷马的伊利亚特（Iliad）占领海伦（Helen）以及随之而来的为期10年的报复战争中，西方文学一直以来都以煽动转向战争作为为妇女服务的争端来进行煽动。然而，在当代西方法律解释中，人们假设法律大公证实主义现在决定着打仗的决定，因此任何此类行动都可以被认为是理性和公正的。但是，当代的战争转向越来越多地引用战争理论，而这一理论被包裹在类似父权制的性别叙述中。乔治·RR·马丁（George RR Martin）的《冰与火之歌》唤起了中世纪的欧洲战争传统，但也探索了自由主义，建国和国际关系的现代方面。本文探讨了小说中的各个角色如何诱使和理解战争的转向。这样做是为了证明根植于骑士精神和保护主义的战争呼吁如何比根植于法律主义语言的战争获得更多的通货，但概述了这种做法如何使并巩固了对女性被动和无助的回归观点。本文最终要求对法律对战争的理解进行另一种解释，即不援引援救者范式，因此可以重新构想当代战争的理由。