Download Free Warfare And Belligerence Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Warfare And Belligerence and write the review.

This collection of essays suggests some of the ways in which an interdisciplinary perspective may contribute to our understanding of the First World War. Its contributors examine the relationship between the character of the war and the nature of belligerent societies, and present original research on the comparative history of the Great War.
A scholarly interpretation of Germany's policies and attitudes during the first World War and their profound effect on subsequent world events
When war broke out in Europe in 1914, political leaders in the United States were swayed by popular opinion to remain neutral; yet less than three years later, the nation declared war on Germany. In Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America's Entry into World War I, Justus D. Doenecke examines the clash of opinions over the war during this transformative period and offers a fresh perspective on America's decision to enter World War I. Doenecke reappraises the public and private diplomacy of President Woodrow Wilson and his closest advisors and explores in great depth the response of Congress to the war. He also investigates the debates that raged in the popular media and among citizen groups that sprang up across the country as the U.S. economy was threatened by European blockades and as Americans died on ships sunk by German U-boats. The decision to engage in battle ultimately belonged to Wilson, but as Doenecke demonstrates, Wilson's choice was not made in isolation. Nothing Less Than War provides a comprehensive examination of America's internal political climate and its changing international role during the seminal period of 1914--1917.
In 1914 America was determined to stay clear of Europe's war. By 1917, the country was ready to lunge into the fray. The Path to War tells the full story of what happened.
When a Serbian-backed assassin gunned down Archduke Franz Ferdinand in late June 1914, the world seemed unmoved. Even Ferdinand's own uncle, Franz Josef I, was notably ambivalent about the death of the Hapsburg heir, saying simply, "It is God's will." Certainly, there was nothing to suggest that the episode would lead to conflict -- much less a world war of such massive and horrific proportions that it would fundamentally reshape the course of human events. As acclaimed historian Sean McMeekin reveals in July 1914, World War I might have been avoided entirely had it not been for a small group of statesmen who, in the month after the assassination, plotted to use Ferdinand's murder as the trigger for a long-awaited showdown in Europe. The primary culprits, moreover, have long escaped blame. While most accounts of the war's outbreak place the bulk of responsibility on German and Austro-Hungarian militarism, McMeekin draws on surprising new evidence from archives across Europe to show that the worst offenders were actually to be found in Russia and France, whose belligerence and duplicity ensured that war was inevitable. Whether they plotted for war or rode the whirlwind nearly blind, each of the men involved -- from Austrian Foreign Minister Leopold von Berchtold and German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov and French president Raymond Poincaré- sought to capitalize on the fallout from Ferdinand's murder, unwittingly leading Europe toward the greatest cataclysm it had ever seen. A revolutionary account of the genesis of World War I, July 1914 tells the gripping story of Europe's countdown to war from the bloody opening act on June 28th to Britain's final plunge on August 4th, showing how a single month -- and a handful of men -- changed the course of the twentieth century.
These 127 essays, although organized under seven headings, have one underlying theme: opposition to the warfare state that robs us of our liberty, our money, and in some cases our life. Conservatives who decry the welfare state while supporting the warfare state are terribly inconsistent. The two are inseparable. Libertarians who are opposed to war on principle, but support the state's bogus war on terrorism, even as they remain silent about the U.S. global empire, are likewise contradictory. Although many of these essays reference contemporary events, the principles discussed in all of them are timeless: war, militarism, empire, interventionism, and the warfare state. In chapter 1, War and Peace, the evils of war and warmongers and the benefits of peace are examined. In chapter 2, The Military, the evils of standing armies and militarism are dis-cussed, including a critical look at the U.S. military. In chapter 3, The War in Iraq, the wickedness of the Iraq War is exposed. In chapter 4, World War II, the good war is shown to be not so good after all. In chapter 5, Other Wars, the evils of war and the warfare state are chronicled in specific wars: the Crimean War (1854 1856), the Russo-Japanese War (1904 1905), World War I (1914 1918), the Persian Gulf War (1990 1991), and the war in Afghanistan (2001 ). In chapter 6, The U.S. Global Empire, the beginnings, growth, extent, nature, and consequences of the U.S. empire of bases and troops are revealed and critiqued. In chapter 7, U.S. Foreign Policy, the belligerence, recklessness, and follies of U.S. foreign policy are laid bare.
To fully comprehend the Vietnam War, it is essential to understand the central role that southerners played in the nation's commitment to the war, in the conflict's duration, and in the fighting itself. President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas and Secretary o
The law of neutrality - the corpus of legal rules regulating the relationship between belligerents and States taking no part in hostilities - assumed its modern form in a world in which the waging of war was unconstrained. The neutral State enjoyed territorial inviolability to the extent that it adhered to the obligations attaching to its neutral status and thus the law of neutrality provided spatial parameters for the conduct of hostilities. Yet the basis on which the law of neutrality developed - the extra-legal character of war - no longer exists. Does the law of neutrality continue to survive in the modern era? If so, how has it been modified by the profound changes in the law on the use of force and the law of armed conflict? This book argues that neutrality endures as a key concept of the law of armed conflict. The interaction between belligerent and nonbelligerent States continues to require legal regulation, as demonstrated by a number of recent conflicts, including the Iraq War of 2003 and the Mavi Marmara incident of 2010. By detailing the rights and duties of neutral states and demonstrating how the rules of neutrality continue to apply in modern day conflicts, this restatement of law of neutrality will be a useful guide to legal academics working on the law of armed conflict, the law on the use of force, and the history of international law, as well as for government and military lawyers seeking comprehensive guidance in this difficult area of the law.
Prior to the progressive development of the law of armed conflict heralded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions most particularly in relation to the concepts of international and non-international armed conflict-the customary doctrine on recognition of belligerency functioned for almost 200 years as the definitive legal scheme for differentiating internal conflict from "civil wars", in which the law of war as applicable between states applied de jure. Employing a legal historical approach, this book describes the thematic and practical fundamentals of the doctrine, and analyzes some of the more significant challenges to its application. In doing so, it assesses whether, how, and why the doctrine on recognition of belligerency was considered "fit for purpose," and seeks to inform debate as to its continuity and utility within the modern scheme of the law of armed conflict.
Originally published by Hersch Lauterpacht in 1947, this book presents a detailed study of recognition in international law, examining its crucial significance in relation to statehood, governments and belligerency. The author develops a strong argument for positioning recognition within the context of international law, reacting against the widely accepted conception of it as an area of international politics. Numerous examples of the use of law and conscious adherence to legal principle in the practice of states are used to give weight to this perspective. This paperback re-issue in 2012 includes a newly commissioned Foreword by James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge.