Rhetorical Entrapment and Normative Enticement: How the United Kingdom Turned From Spoiler Into Champion of the Cluster Munition Ban

Petrova, Margarita H.

doi:10.1093/isq/sqv013

Cited by 43 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What it did do, however, is construct a future that rapidly became a self-serving past. This is not to say that moves like these were intentional or the product of significant planning, but when the ultimate result of political contestation is the (re)production of an indefinite present, it denies the ability of opponents to martial the lessons of the past, point out hypocrisies (actions contradictory with the past), or imagine an alternative future, each of which is a critical element of opposition in times of political contestation (Petrova, 2016). The first step to building toward future political change is imagining a future that is different.…”

Section: Temporal Politics In the Trump Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Trump administration’s politics of time: The temporal dynamics that enable Trump’s interests to determine American foreign policy

McIntosh

2020

Time & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars and political observers have noted how the rate of significant events and crises in the Trump administration appear to be accelerating at an unmanageable and irresistible pace, making it difficult to respond to these actions as they happen. This paper uses the lens of the present as a frame for exploring the temporal assumptions and “timing mechanisms” at work in the contemporary moment within American politics, particularly within US foreign and security policy. The paper identifies and explores three elements of this particular present that combine to enable the implementation of Trump administration policy goals. These three areas include the production of an indefinite present, temporal othering, and the rapid tempo of political activity. Focusing on the temporal dynamics of the political present during the Trump administration reveals some of the ways in which domestic and/or foreign acquiescence is realized despite their rejection of recent US foreign policy doctrine. The paper concludes with a reflection on likely implications this will have on the conduct of American foreign policy, ultimately arguing that it is likely to become increasingly unpredictable and even more violent, dangerously exacerbating already existing inequalities, marginalizations, and erasures of difference.

show abstract

Section: Temporal Politics In the Trump Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Trump administration’s politics of time: The temporal dynamics that enable Trump’s interests to determine American foreign policy

McIntosh

2020

Time & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The campaign against AP landmines succeeded in achieving the first complete ban on a conventional weapon by coining the image of AP landmines as 'indiscriminate, delayed-action weapons that cannot distinguish between a soldier and an innocent civilian' (Price, 1998, p. 628). Some years later, the ban on cluster bombs was grafted onto this existing stigma by drawing an analogy between landmines and unexploded submunitions killing civilians long after the end of conflicts (Petrova, 2016;.…”

Section: Laws and The Principle Of Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First

Rosert

Sauer

2019

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In addition to its successful mobilization in stigmatization and norm‐setting processes on anti‐personnel landmines and cluster munitions, the principle of distinction as enshrined in International Humanitarian Law also figures prominently in the debate on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). Proponents of a ban on LAWS frame these as indiscriminate, that is, unable to distinguish between civilians and combatants, and thus as inherently unlawful. The flip side of this particular legal argument is, however, that LAWS become acceptable when considered capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. We thus argue, first, that this particular legal basis for the call for a ban on LAWS might be rendered obsolete by technological progress increasing discriminatory weapon capabilities. Second, we argue that the argument is normatively troubling as it suggests that, as long as civilians remain unharmed, attacking combatants with LAWS is acceptable. Consequently, we find that the legal principle of distinction is not the overall strongest argument to mobilize when trying to stigmatize and ban LAWS. A more fundamental, ethical argument within the debate about LAWS – and one less susceptible to ‘technological fixes’ – should be emphasized instead, namely that life and death decisions on the battlefield should always and in principle be made by humans only.

show abstract

“…Empirically, much IR work highlights social pressure in multilateralism after the Cold War (Petrova, 2016;Price, 1998;Schimmelfennig, 2001), overlooking the pervasive and productive dynamics of state inter-group social competition during the making of postwar international order, especially during between the 1950s and 1970s. Limited research on this historical period so far emphasizes these dynamics (Acharya, 2018; Burke, 2010; Colgan and Miller, 2019;Jensen, 2016;Waltz, 2001).…”

Section: Social Pressure and Status Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social pressure and the making of wartime civilian protection rules

Mantilla

2019

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The protection of civilians from the dangers of warfare constitutes an imperative in contemporary global politics. Drawing on original multiarchival research, this article explains the codification of the core civilian protection rules within international humanitarian law in the 1970s. It argues that these crucial international rules resulted from the operation of two central mechanisms: Third World and Socialist-led social pressure and a strategic, face-saving reaction to it, leadership capture, in the politicized context of Cold War and decolonization-era international social competition. I demonstrate the conditional effect of social pressure by a coalition of materially weaker Third World and Socialist states upon powerful reluctant states: the United States, the United Kingdom, and more surprisingly, the Soviet Union. Third World and Socialist social pressure fostered a curious US-USSR backstage collaboration I label leadership capture, decisively shaping the legal compromise embodied in the civilian protection rules of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Theoretically, this article furthers burgeoning IR work on the connection between social pressure, status competition, and international rule-making. Empirically it presents a new archives-based history of an intrinsically important case in international law.

show abstract

Rhetorical Entrapment and Normative Enticement: How the United Kingdom Turned From Spoiler Into Champion of the Cluster Munition Ban

Cited by 43 publications

References 56 publications

The Trump administration’s politics of time: The temporal dynamics that enable Trump’s interests to determine American foreign policy

The Trump administration’s politics of time: The temporal dynamics that enable Trump’s interests to determine American foreign policy

Prohibiting Autonomous Weapons: Put Human Dignity First

Social pressure and the making of wartime civilian protection rules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About