Nina Tannenwald

Matthew Evangelista

The Geneva Conventions are the best-known and longest-established laws governing warfare, but what difference do they make to how states engage in armed conflict? Since the start of the "War on Terror" with 9/11, these protocols have increasingly been incorporated into public discussion. We have entered an era where contemporary wars often involve terrorism and guerrilla tactics, but how have the rules that were designed for more conventional forms of interstate violence adjusted? Do the Geneva Conventions Matter? provides a rich, comparative analysis of the laws that govern warfare and a more specific investigation relating to state practice. Matthew Evangelista and Nina Tannenwald convey the extent and conditions that symbolic or "ritual" compliance translates into actual compliance on the battlefield by looking at important studies across history. To name a few, they navigate through the Algerian War for independence from France in the 1950s and 1960s; the US wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Iranian and Israeli approaches to the laws of war; and the legal obligations of private security firms and peacekeeping forces. Thoroughly researched, this work adds to the law and society literature in sociology, the constructivist literature in international relations, and legal scholarship on "internalization." Do the Geneva Conventions Matter? gives insight into how the Geneva regime has constrained guerrilla warfare and terrorism and the factors that affect protect human rights in wartime.

Do the Geneva Conventions Matter?

Why have nuclear weapons not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Nina Tannenwald disputes the conventional answer of 'deterrence' in favour of what she calls a nuclear taboo - a widespread inhibition on using nuclear weapons - which has arisen in global politics. Drawing on newly released archival sources, Tannenwald traces the rise of the nuclear taboo, the forces that produced it, and its influence, particularly on US leaders. She analyzes four critical instances where US leaders considered using nuclear weapons (Japan 1945, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War 1991) and examines how the nuclear taboo has repeatedly dissuaded US and other world leaders from resorting to these 'ultimate weapons'. Through a systematic analysis, Tannenwald challenges conventional conceptions of deterrence and offers a compelling argument on the moral bases of nuclear restraint as well as an important insight into how nuclear war can be avoided in the future.

Nina Tannenwald

About

Books

Join the club