Content area
Full Text
* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Introduction
On 7 April 2017 and on 14 April 2018, cruise missiles were fired into Syria by the United States and, in 2018, also by France and the United Kingdom. The 2017 strikes reportedly killed six soldiers and possibly also civilians. 1 This use of force was justified as a response to the use of chemical weapons a few days earlier, which, according to Western leaders, ‘must not go unpunished’. 2 Similar language was used in April 2018: The White House referred to the use of chemical weapons as a ‘crime’ and added that ‘with each chemical attack that goes unpunished, dangerous regimes see an opportunity to expand their arsenal’, 3 whereas Theresa May stated that the strikes were ‘a clear message to anyone who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity’. 4
The invocation of the vocabulary of punishment, retribution, and pedagogy deviates from the dominant liberal narrative about international law and international relations, which emphasises the individualisation of punishment. 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. And indeed, international law by now has outlawed punitive wars, leaving only room for the use of force in self-defence, to enforce binding Security Council Resolutions and, controversially, to protect basic human rights. Punishment is delegated to the criminal justice system, which focuses on individuals, not states as such.
And yet, the language used in justifying military strikes against Syria is hardly surprising, as it fits in a longer pattern of post-1945 wars that have been justified in terms of ‘punishment’, or the need to educate deviant leaders (‘teaching a lesson’). Apparently, punishment – that is, the ‘infliction of harm in response to a violation of a norm or rule’ 5 – has been more difficult to fully channel towards individuals and away from collectives than claimed. The formal ban on punitive wars has not been followed by the absence of punitive justifications for armed interventions.
At first sight, this may lead to an obvious conclusion: since 1945 there have been regular violations of the...