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. 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.

中文翻译：

---

无政府状态下的战争与惩罚

惩罚的个体化是关于国际法和国际关系的自由主义叙事的一个关键要素。这种叙述已成为实证国际法的组成部分，特别是规范使用武力和起诉国际罪行的制度。自由主义者声称，惩罚不再是惩罚国家或整个社会，而是仅限于那些个人有罪的人。对自由主义者来说，惩罚的个体化是更大的启蒙和文明进程的一部分，它有助于遏制报复等返祖现象。我们不质疑国际法中出现了更加复杂的个人惩罚制度。然而，我们认为惩罚性比声称的更难以完全引导到个人和远离集体。可以肯定的是，武装冲突法基本上禁止使用惩罚性语言。然而，我们认为没有惩罚性词汇并不等于没有惩罚性。相比之下，当前使用武力的国家做法仍然充满了惩罚性，但在当前的法律框架中被压制了，因此被推到了地下。我们认为，意识到惩罚性暗流的存在，增加了对当代国家实践的更全面的理解。