At the vanishing point of law? : international law and the use of force by Britain and Canada in the Korean War and Afghanistan Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines important aspects of Canada and Britain’s participation in the Korean War of 1950-53 and the Afghanistan Conflict of 2001-present with a view to better understanding how international law influenced this participation, and whether key leaders and officials understood said law as a binding and distinct phenomenon. It draws on constructivist International Relations (IR) theory and “interactional” International Law (IL) theory, and employs a method of historical reconstruction and process tracing. I argue that, contrary to what realism might predict, international law helped define and shape each state’s possible course of action in the wars, and the justifications that could be made for their behaviour. More specifically, Canada and Britain’s involvement in the conflicts suggests that, when states use force, international law can play four broad roles: 1) it helps constitute the identities of the actors at issue; 2) it helps regulate the political and military practice of the actors at issue; 3) it permits and legitimates certain political and military practices that otherwise might not be permitted; and 4) it helps structure the process by which agents seek to develop and promote new legal rules and legitimate practice. However, I also contend that, contrary to what IL scholars might predict, the discourse and actions of Canadian and British leaders and officials during the Korean War and Afghanistan Conflict offer mixed support for the hypothesis that, when states use force, policy-makers understand international law as a binding and distinct set of legal rules, and the legal status of these rules impacts their decision-making. In sum, my findings suggest that international law can play important roles in world politics and the use of force by states, but it is unclear whether these effects are attributable to an obligatory quality in law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".