This paper scrutinises the modus operandi of classical and political humanitarianism: the use of ambiguity and prescription to frame calls for international action to protect civilians, and public commentary on jus in bello and jus ad bellum. It does so by innovatively considering the perspectives of belligerents alongside those of humanitarian actors, so as to identify how belligerents have responded to the two humanitarian modus operandi, and to ascertain the connection of humanitarian actors to the wars and international military interventions that they have implicitly or explicitly called for or endorsed. The paper finds that the response of belligerents differs from what both classical and political humanitarians expect. Even where humanitarians maintain ambiguity, the intention to will military action remains present and even the documentation and reporting of violence will bolster military intervention. Such consequences will be perceptible to belligerents, who may restrict humanitarian space. When humanitarians advance jus ad bellum perspectives, the humanitarian identity envisioned by classicists is not necessarily compromised. But belligerents are positively influenced by such perspectives only when those perspectives coincide with their own position.

中文翻译：

---

军事干预主义与反恐时代的古典政治人道主义

本文仔细研究了古典和政治人道主义的作案手法：使用模棱两可和处方来构架呼吁采取国际行动保护平民的呼吁，并就贝卢和贝卢姆的法律进行公众评论。它这样做是通过创新性地考虑交战方与人道主义行为者的观点，从而确定交战方对这两种人道主义方法的反应，并确定人道主义行为者与战争和国际军事干预之间的联系。或明确要求或认可。该论文发现交战者的反应与古典人道主义者和政治人道主义者所期望的不同。即使在人道主义者保持歧义的地方，仍然会采取军事行动的意图，甚至记录和报告暴力行为也会加强军事干预。交战者可能会察觉到这种后果，他们可能会限制人道主义空间。当人道主义者推进绝对观点时，古典主义者所设想的人道主义身份并不一定会受到损害。但是，只有当这些观点与自己的立场相吻合时，交战方才会受到这些观点的积极影响。