
Armed Reprisals from Medieval Times to 1945
- Autor:innen:
- Reihe:
- Studien zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts, Band 40
- Verlag:
- 2020
Zusammenfassung
Wie ist es zu erklären, dass sich die bewaffneten Repressalien den Normierungsbemühungen seit dem 19. Jh. entzogen, während diese nicht-kriegerische Maßnahme ein sensibles Thema im Völkerrecht darstellte? Ausgehend vom mittelalterlichen Repressalienrecht und seiner schwindenden Geltung in der Neuzeit beweist die Untersuchung, dass die Großmächte diese Gewaltanwendung in Friedenszeiten zum Privileg machten und sie in einer völkerrechtlichen Grauzone beließen. Dies ermöglichte es, militärische Repressalienhandlungen gegen kleine Staaten durchzuführen, ohne die Folgen eines formellen Krieges zu tragen. Die Arbeit erläutert die zögerliche Haltung der Rechtslehre und zeigt, warum der Völkerbund in dem Versuch scheiterte, dieses Problem zu lösen.
Publikation durchsuchen
Bibliographische Angaben
- Copyrightjahr
- 2020
- ISBN-Print
- 978-3-8487-7718-1
- ISBN-Online
- 978-3-7489-2111-0
- Verlag
- Nomos, Baden-Baden
- Reihe
- Studien zur Geschichte des Völkerrechts
- Band
- 40
- Sprache
- Englisch
- Seiten
- 336
- Produkttyp
- Monographie
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisSeiten 1 - 18 Download Kapitel (PDF)
- 1. Contextualisation of a Remark by Karl Strupp
- 2. Blurry Line between Armed Reprisals and War
- 3. Pre-1919 Practice
- II. Leading Question
- III. State of Research
- IV. Research Hypotheses
- V. Sources
- VI. Structure
- I. Introduction
- 1. Emergence and Development of Reprisals in the Early and High Middle Ages
- (a) Significance for the Law of Reprisals
- (b) Justification of Reprisals
- i) Superior’s Consent
- ii) Just Cause
- (d) Execution
- 3. Risks of Abuse
- (a) Diplomatic Interposition of the Sovereign
- (b) Progressive Exclusion of Private Individuals from the Execution
- (a) General Aspects
- (b) Blurring of the Line between War and Peace
- (c) Vattel’s Pertinent Remark
- IV. Interim Conclusion
- I. Introduction
- (a) Preliminary Observation: ‘Reprisal Clause’ in Bilateral Treaties
- (b) Characteristics of Inferiority
- (a) Issues of Commercial Nature
- (b) Assertion of National Dignity: ‘Civis Romanus Sum’, 1850
- 1. A Question of Political Opportunism: Palmerston’s Policy, 1847
- (a) Denial of Justice debated in the British Parliament, 1850
- i) The Principle laid down in the 23rd Paris Protocol of 1856
- ii) The Cagliari affair, 1857–1858
- iii) The Prince of Wales case: British Reprisals against Brazil, 1862–1863
- (a) Standard of Proportionality versus Efficacy
- (b) Widening of the Category of Reprisals
- 2. Confusion between War and Peace
- 3. A Right in Vertical Power Relations
- V. Interim Conclusion
- I. Introduction
- II. Precursors of the Doctrinal Debate on Armed Reprisals: Wurm and Hautefeuille
- 1. Rising Interest and Controversy, 1849–1887
- (a) First Contact at The Hague, 1875
- i) Triggering Event: The French Blockade of Formosa, 1884
- ii) The Work of the Institute
- (c) Reception of the Institute’s Declaration
- 3. Departing State Practice: The Blockades of Siam (1893) and Crete (1897–1898)
- (a) “Mais si la doctrine proteste, la politique agit”
- (b) Dialogue of the Deaf
- (c) Opinio Juris
- (a) Variety of Armed Reprisals
- (b) The Uncertain Dividing Line between Peace and War
- (c) State of Reprisals
- (a) Background
- (b) The Venezuelan Preferential Claims
- i) Previous Efforts of Prevention of Armed Reprisals in International Law
- ii) The Drago Doctrine as Corollary of the Monroe Doctrine
- iii) From Political Policy to Norm of International Law
- iv) Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907
- v) Mixed Impact of the Second Hague Conference on Armed Reprisals
- V. Interim Conclusion
- I. Introduction
- 1. Enforcement of War Reparations: The Ruhr Occupation, 1923–1925
- (a) Right of Acting Unilaterally
- (b) Allowed Measures
- 3. Outlook: The Unlikely Limitation of Armed Reprisals
- (a) Organisation of the League of Nations
- (b) Dispute Settlement Procedure
- (c) Deficiency Regarding Armed Reprisals
- (a) The Facts
- (b) Discussion in the Council
- i) Interpretation of the Covenant by the Special Commission of Jurists
- ii) Renewal of the Doctrinal Debate
- iii) Opinion of the Small Member States
- (a) The Greek-Bulgarian Incident, 1925
- (b) Japan’s Invasion of Chinese Manchuria
- 1. Session of Paris, 1934
- 2. Criticisms
- 1. An Insoluble Issue?
- 2. Prohibition of the Use of Force under the UN-Charter
- VI. Interim Conclusion
- ConclusionSeiten 289 - 292 Download Kapitel (PDF)
- BibliographySeiten 293 - 336 Download Kapitel (PDF)




