Indeed what I have found disturbing and provocative about neo-conservative arguments is the way they refer to innovative analyses about phenomena such as globalisation and new wars or the role of non-state actors and turn them upside down. I also use the term ‘new wars’ but I come to almost diametrically opposite conclusions that have to do with tightening up international law and closing loopholes that can be used to loosen constraints on the use of force. Even though the Obama Administration does not use the phrase ‘War on Terror’, practices like targeted killings, indefinite detention of suspects, or military commissions that are justified through this expansive interpretation continue and somehow become ‘normalised’. President Bush described the War on Terror as a ‘new kind of war’ and he used the term to justify a reinterpretation of the international law rules governing the use of the armed force and the conduct of armed force in expansive ways.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |