🎉The HPS³ is back! On Wednesday, April 8, 5:15 PM in VMP9 B130, we are pleased to welcome @janinadill.bsky.social (University of Oxford). As always, everyone is warmly invited to attend, no prior registration required. Check out the full program👉 www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/en/fachberei...
Den offenen Brief kann man noch unterzeichnen. Danke vor allem an @goldmatt.bsky.social für die Initiative.
Wir hoffen vor allem die deutschen Entscheidungsträger, die die Abkehr Deutschlands vom Völkerrecht, oder seine Unterordnung unter kurzfristige (so auch eher nicht erreichbare) Politikziele mit Sorge sehen, zu unterstützen.
Eine Stellungnahme mit deutschen Kollegen in Rechts- und Politikwissenschaften zu der fehlgeleiteten deutschen Außenpolitik im Kontext des völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffs auf den Iran.
We were supported by the @leverhulme.ac.uk, @nuffieldcollege.bsky.social and Duke University.
Our article reveals an additional reason to actually establish local views about U.S. military intervention: local consent is critically implicated in the democratic legitimacy of the use of force "at home".
To infer local consent from a claimed local benefit is empirically unsound and morally dubious. The use of force for the supposed benefit of a third party is paternalistic if the beneficiary does not consent.
Claims that a particular U.S. military intervention benefits the local population should always be scrutinised. Even military interventions that are genuinely meant to vindicate the rights or democratic aspirations of the local population often fail to do so.
However, we find that the effect of consent holds when a U.S. intervention is predicted to be costless and relatively successful. This is consistent with a principled stance on the importance of beneficiary consent to the use of force for the supposed benefit of a third party.
We find that local consent exerts a strong effect on U.S. war support. Local consent could be taken as a proxy for the likely success of a U.S. intervention and thus be part of the instrumental cost-benefit calculation that scholars have long argued explains U.S. war support.
In our article in the latest issue of @intsecurity.bsky.social , we (Livia Schubiger, Emily Myers, and I) investigate whether the views of the local population on U.S. military intervention shape public support for war in the United States.
American Presidents invariably claim that the use of U.S. military force abroad benefits the local population. U.S. Presidents often explicitly or implicitly claim that "the intervened population" therefore welcomes U.S. military intervention - a powerful moral claim.
When the US or Israel blatantly violate int law for their own gain we mustn't mistake it for an effort to reform an imperfect system of laws.
Thanks @tomdannenbaum.bsky.social & @bechamilton.bsky.social for saying this with clarity and integrity.
justsecurity.org/133417/aggre...
I have not seen officials explanations by the United States.
The onset of major hostilities would have created an obligation for Iran to evacuate the school if feasible, given its proximity to the military base. Some news outlets report that Iranian authorities have claimed this was not feasible as the attack occurred too soon into the war.
Addendum Option 2: Reckless attacks against civilian objects have in certain contexts been deemed criminal. This standard was not adopted in the Rome Statute. Crucially, too many news outlets wrongly equate “unlikely to be a war crime” with “no violation of law”.
Addendum Option 1: There has been no indication or claim whatsoever that the school had lost its status as a civilian object due to being used for military purposes.
In this case, extra care would have to be taken not to misfire or cause incidental damage to the school. Even this factually less likely scenario, likely involves a violation of international law.
If the US military knew about the presence of the school, the principle of constant care would demand that they attack proximate military objectives at a time when the school is not in session, unless there are overriding military considerations (such as a fleeting target).
3. Misfire: the attacker knew this was a school, meant to target one of the nearby military objectives, but the weapon misfired and hit the school.
the investigation suggests that it would have been feasible to identify the building as a school (visibility, generally good intelligence, publicly available information about the school). Attackers are under an obligation to do everything feasible to verify the status of the targeted object.
2. Misidentification: the attacker assumed they were directing the attack against a military objective (for instance a building belonging to the neighboring base). This would still be a very serious violation of international law since...
1. Atrocity: the attacker knew they were directing the attack against a school (for whatever purpose). This would be a war crime. Whether media outlets entertain this possibility depends not so much on the available evidence, but on their general assumptions about the US military.
A School is a civilian object that must not be directly attacked. The building was directly attacked mostly likely by, the NYT argues, US forces. There are three options for how this happened with different legal implications:
The NYT Investigative team (and other news outlets) have reported in detail on the attack against the Elementary School in Minab, Iran. I had the opportunity to comment, but the law is not the story so there is more to be said.
Allow me to elaborate:
And a Master in Public Policy, though from well before my time, so I claim no credit whatsoever. :)
Excellent explainer with analysis from @janinadill.bsky.social, @oonahathaway.bsky.social, @adhaque.bsky.social, Ben Saul, and Marko Milanovic:
www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/u...
British PM Starmer says that U.K. bases will only be used for ’defensive’ operations and not ‘offensive’ ops. But how can that be so when they are being used by the aggressor?
Great discussion here with Milanovic, @adhaque.bsky.social @janinadill.bsky.social
www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/u...
📣 Reminder: Join us on 12 March (16–18h) at the Paulinum, Leipzig, for our panel “Peace and Security in Times of Hybrid Threats.”
🗣️Panel:
Dr. Astrid Irrgang (ZIF)
Prof. Dr. @janinadill.bsky.social (ECLAC)
Oberst i.G. Katharina Benford (BAKS)
Ulrich Hörning, Mayor of Leipzig
German and English!
