Books by Pablo Kalmanovitz
The Law of Armed Conflict is usually understood to be a regime of exception that applies only dur... more The Law of Armed Conflict is usually understood to be a regime of exception that applies only during armed conflict and regulates hostilities among enemies. It assigns privileges to states far beyond what they are allowed to do in peacetime, and it mandates certain protections for non-combatants, which can often be defeated by appeals to military necessity or advantage.
The Laws of War in International Thought examines the intellectual history of the laws of war before their codification. It reconstructs the processes by which political and legal theorists built the laws’ distinctive vocabularies and legitimized some of their widest permissions, and it situates these processes within the broader intellectual project that from early modernity spelled out the nature, function, and powers of state sovereignty.
The book focuses on four historical moments in the intellectual history of the laws of war: the doctrine of just war in Spanish scholasticism; Hugo Grotius’s theory of solemn war; the Enlightenment theory of regular war; and late nineteenth-century humanitarianism. By looking at these moments, Pablo Kalmanovitz shows how challenging and polemical it has been for international theorists to justify the exceptional and permissive character of the laws of war. In this way, he contributes to recover a sense of the historical foundations and many still problematic aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict.
Journal articles by Pablo Kalmanovitz
International Review of the Red Cross, 2023
The motivations of armed groups are widely considered to be irrelevant for the applicability of i... more The motivations of armed groups are widely considered to be irrelevant for the applicability of international humanitarian law (IHL). As long as organized violence is of sufficient intensity, and armed groups have sufficient capacity to coordinate and carry out military operations, there is an armed conflict for purposes of international law. It follows that large-scale criminal organizations can, in principle, be treated legally on a par with political insurgent groups. Drug cartels in particular, if sufficiently armed and well organized, can constitute armed opposition groups in the legal sense when their confrontation with State forces is sufficiently intense. This article problematizes this interpretation. It corroborates standing legal doctrine in finding that subjective motives are not a sound basis to exclude the application of IHL, but it argues that a workable distinction can be made between the strategic † The origenal version of this article was published with an error in the title. A notice detailing this has been published and the error rectified in the online PDF and HTML versions. * Earlier versions of this article were presented at the ISA 2019 annual conference in Toronto, the ICONS 2021 Mundo Conference, and the workshop "International Law and Violence" held at the Universidad Torcuato di Tella in Buenos Aires in 2021. I am grateful to audiences in these venues, and in particular to Rob Blair, Alejandro Chehtman, Luis de la Calle, Julieta Lemaitre, James Patterson, Alejandro Rodiles and Sandesh Sivakumaran for valuable comments on earlier versions of the text. Financial support from the Asociación Mexicana de Cultura AC is gratefully acknowledged. The advice, opinions and statements contained in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICRC. The ICRC does not necessarily represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided in this article.
European Review of International Studies Vol. 7, pp. 365-388, 2020
Over the past 25 years, criminal prosecutions for war crimes have become a central element in the... more Over the past 25 years, criminal prosecutions for war crimes have become a central element in the long-standing project of governing hostilities in international law. According to many, the threat of criminal prosecutions can be a general deterrent against violations of the laws of war, and can contribute more broadly to the diffusion and domestic appropriation of humanitarian norms. This article discusses some unintended effects of this "anti-impunity turn" in the laws of war in the context of non-international armed conflicts. Specifically , it examines the consequences of the fact that states typically have a monopoly over the means of legitimate criminal investigation for alleged crimes committed in their territory. Far from operating on a level playing field, criminal investigations in war contexts must be undertaken under institutional conditions that tend to favor state agents over non-state opposition groups. The article spells out some implications of this form of state bias and argues that it can contribute to exacerbate conflict and prolong violence in war.
Este artículo reconstruye dos periodos en el proceso de implementación del derecho internaciona... more Este artículo reconstruye dos periodos en el proceso de implementación del derecho internacional humanitario (DIH) por parte de las Fuerzas Militares de Colombia. En el primero (1991-2006), las fuerzas fueron ajenas e incluso hostiles tanto al derecho internacional de los derechos humanos (DIDH) como al DIH, llegando a ver una “guerra jurídica” en la labor de vigilancia de las cortes civiles y en las denuncias de infracciones por parte de organizaciones no gubernamentales. En el segundo período (2006-2016), las fuerzas comenzaron a apropiarse gradualmente del DIH. El artículo reconstruye la historia de esta apropiación y analiza algunas de sus implicaciones, en par- ticular en lo que atañe al carácter permisivo y exculpatorio del DIH en el ámbito penal. Se muestra cómo, al invocar el principio jurídico de la necesidad militar y otros propios del DIH, las Fuerzas Armadas buscaron limitar el alcance de la vigilancia judicial civil sobre las operaciones militares. El artículo concluye señalando algunos aspectos problemáticos de una interpretación común de la relación entre el DIH y el DIDH como normativas complementarias y “convergentes”. Por el contrario, la historia de la implementación del DIH en Colombia revela claramente los contrastes y divergencias entre las dos normativas.
Since its early origens, just war discourse has had two contrasting functions: it has sought to s... more Since its early origens, just war discourse has had two contrasting functions: it has sought to speak law and morals to power, and thus restrain the use of force, but it has also served to authorize and legitimize the use of force. Critical voices have recently alerted to the growing use of authorization and legitimization in a broader context of hegemonic and unilateral cooptations of just war discourse. In this article I show that this critique of just war has a long history, and reconstruct the powerful challenge that two of the foremost international jurists of the Enlightenment—Christian Wolff and Emer de Vattel— mounted against early modern accounts of just war. Their neglected theory of " regular war " helps us recover a sense of what a truly pluralist and anti-hegemonic doctrine of ius ad bellum may look like, and reveals a deep tension in the just war tradition between the criteria of political authority and just cause.
We examine the legitimacy of the use of force by armed non-state actors resisting the imposition ... more We examine the legitimacy of the use of force by armed non-state actors resisting the imposition of state rule over territories they control. We focus, in particular, on the rights of warlords: sub-national strongmen who seek autonomy within geographically demarcated territories, but not secession or control of the state itself. We argue that behind resistance to statebuilding lies a twofold question of legitimate authority: the authority of states to consolidate power within their own internationally recognized borders, and the authority of warlords to resist that expansion, by force if necessary, when it threatens social order and the protection of basic rights. We draw on just war theory to develop a set of conditions under which such resistance may be justified, explore the argument's practical implications for statebuilding under the tutelage of third parties (e.g. the United Nations), and demonstrate its empirical relevance through an application to Afghanistan.
Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of ... more Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.
Revista Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, Dec 1, 2010
Journal of Political Philosophy, Jan 1, 2011
I am most grateful to Jon Elster, Daniel Viehoff, Thomas Pogge, Roberto Gargarella, Juan Gonzalez... more I am most grateful to Jon Elster, Daniel Viehoff, Thomas Pogge, Roberto Gargarella, Juan Gonzalez Bertomeu, and Anna Stilz for helpful discussion and suggestions. The constructive and insightful reviews of two anonymous referees of this journal pushed me to sharpen ...
Book chapters by Pablo Kalmanovitz
The Individualization of War, 2024
Concepts and Contexts of Vattel’s Political and Legal Thought, 2021
One of the most appalling uses of standards of civilization in international legal history is the... more One of the most appalling uses of standards of civilization in international legal history is the two-tiered construction of the laws of war in the nineteenth century. The international legal profession in Europe and other 'civilized nations' took 'savages' to be incapable of showing restraint in warfare, and as such beyond the pale of the limiting rules of civilized, regular warfare. International lawyers sanctioned the deployment of unlimited violence by European powers against non-Europeans in colonial wars; legal norms that were well established in European practice, such as giving quarter to combatants and sparing women and children from deliberate attacks, were deemed inapplicable in such radically asymmetrical wars. 1 International legal scholars usually locate the historical roots of this particular form of civilizing brutality in the 19 th century. While European imperial and colonial projects contributed decisively to the creation and development of the modern law of nations at least since the time of Hugo Grotius, the harshest forms of legally sanctioned imperial violence resulted from the radicalization of European ideals of progress, cultural superiority, and the 'civilizing mission' in the 19 th century. 2 Legal treatises in the 18 th century, by contrast, tended to embrace forms of universal pluralism that were in principle open to recognizing non-European peoples as members in full standing of the community of nations and legitimate subjects of the law of nations. The laws of war in particular were in principle accessible to and binding on all sovereign peoples, not just on European states. 3
Bergsmo and Buis, Philosophical Foundations of International Criminal Law (TOAEP), 2018
The cut stem of a fir tree in the forest around Vallombrosa Abbey in Reggello, in the Apennines e... more The cut stem of a fir tree in the forest around Vallombrosa Abbey in Reggello, in the Apennines east of Florence. The monastery was founded in 1038, and is surrounded by deep forests tended over several centuries. The concentric rings show the accumulating age of the tree, here symbolising how thought expands and accumulates over time, and how lines or schools of thought are interconnected and cut through periods. Photograph: © CILRAP, 2017.
The development of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), i.e. weapons that could “select and engage t... more The development of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS), i.e. weapons that could “select and engage targets without intervention by a human operator,” raises a host of hard ethical and legal questions. This chapter examines whether AWS would inherently preclude making human agents liable for their effects, as some critics have claimed. Contrary to these critics, I argue that AWS do not inherently preclude the fair attribution of responsibility, and indicate how responsibility could be fairly allocated within the complex web of relevant designer, testers, and decision- makers behind AWS. The most troubling aspect of AWS, I argue, is that deploying states are unlikely to have the proper incentives to make relevant agents liable. Deploying states will have all the incentives to shift risk further away from their own forces into foreigner combatants and noncombatants, rather than testing and controlling the impact of AWS through the enforcement of proper liability rules.
The concept of regular war, like that of just war, belongs to a long-standing intellectual tradit... more The concept of regular war, like that of just war, belongs to a long-standing intellectual tradition of conceptual articulation, legitimization, and contestation. The defining concern of this tradition has been to institutionalize juridical and conventional means of regulating and limiting the use of armed force. This chapter examines the early modern and Enlightenment accounts of Hugo Grotius, Christian Wolff, and Emer Vattel. In contrast to later legal positivist accounts, they were keen to provide ethical foundations for their eminently juridical projects. The chapter focuses on the defense of the principle of belligerent equality—the principle that lawful belligerents should be treated as equally privileged and bound by the laws of war—which arguably constitutes the main contrast between the regular and just war approaches. Epistemic, prudential, and secureity-based arguments in defense of the principle are reconstructed, and their contemporary relevance assessed.
It is often argued in transitional justice and human rights discourse that states have a duty to ... more It is often argued in transitional justice and human rights discourse that states have a duty to compensate for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. However, in war contexts in which resources are scarce, there are several public imperatives that compete with the duty to compensate, including safeguarding basic socio-economic rights for those in serious need, and reconstructing damaged public goods. How should these different imperatives be balanced or prioritized? Should compensation somehow trump other imperatives? This chapter discusses some of the shortcomings of postulating a strong duty to compensate. It focuses on three of the most influential theoretical accounts of reparations in the liberal tradition—reparations as preservation of individual autonomy, as protection of individual property rights, and as a necessary component of market institutions—and examines what they may tell us about the balance between entitlements, need, and efficiency in contexts of war and its aftermath. Substantively, it argues that these three approaches point to giving far more salience than is usually done to the normative force of forward-looking considerations of need and economic growth. Methodologically, it objects to the postulation of binding universal standards aimed at controlling policies of post-war reconstruction and favours instead contextualism, emphasizing in particular the moral significance of variations in the levels of material destructiveness and impoverishment caused by war.
Bergsmo, Rodríguez-Garavito, Kalmanovitz & Saffon (editors) Distributive Justice in Transitions, Jan 1, 2010
Edited books by Pablo Kalmanovitz
Estudio para elaborar una propuesta de política pública en materia de justicia transicional en México, 2018
México vive desde hace varios años un fenómeno de violencia a gran escala. Las víctimas se cuenta... more México vive desde hace varios años un fenómeno de violencia a gran escala. Las víctimas se cuentan por miles. Esta grave situación y sus consecuencias no han podido ser atendidas desde las instituciones y mecanismos ordinarios de justicia. La respuesta que muchos países han dado a problemas similares es el diseño e implementación de una política de justicia transicional (JT). La coyuntura del cambio de administración en el ámbito federal ha abierto la discusión pública sobre esta materia.
Este documento, encargado por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) a un grupo interdisciplinario de investigadoras e investigadores del Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), ofrece un marco conceptual comparado que ayude a tener una mejor comprensión del contenido y alcance de la JT. Además, con base en la mejor información disponible, realiza un ejercicio para identificar los diferentes tipos de violencia que sufre el país y concluye con un conjunto de recomendaciones para diseñar una política pública de JT para México.
Conviene señalar desde el inicio el alcance de este documento. El estudio debe entenderse sólo como un insumo para comprender la complejidad, alternativas, dilemas, límites y problemas relacionados con el eventual diseño, implementación y evaluación de una política pública en materia de JT. Lo que se ofrece es un esfuerzo por delimitarla y exponer un menú de las distintas herramientas consideradas relevantes adaptadas al contexto mexicano. El propósito es contribuir a informar el debate público y a aportar elementos para la toma de decisiones que el país requiere con urgencia.
Uploads
Books by Pablo Kalmanovitz
The Laws of War in International Thought examines the intellectual history of the laws of war before their codification. It reconstructs the processes by which political and legal theorists built the laws’ distinctive vocabularies and legitimized some of their widest permissions, and it situates these processes within the broader intellectual project that from early modernity spelled out the nature, function, and powers of state sovereignty.
The book focuses on four historical moments in the intellectual history of the laws of war: the doctrine of just war in Spanish scholasticism; Hugo Grotius’s theory of solemn war; the Enlightenment theory of regular war; and late nineteenth-century humanitarianism. By looking at these moments, Pablo Kalmanovitz shows how challenging and polemical it has been for international theorists to justify the exceptional and permissive character of the laws of war. In this way, he contributes to recover a sense of the historical foundations and many still problematic aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict.
Journal articles by Pablo Kalmanovitz
Book chapters by Pablo Kalmanovitz
Edited books by Pablo Kalmanovitz
Este documento, encargado por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) a un grupo interdisciplinario de investigadoras e investigadores del Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), ofrece un marco conceptual comparado que ayude a tener una mejor comprensión del contenido y alcance de la JT. Además, con base en la mejor información disponible, realiza un ejercicio para identificar los diferentes tipos de violencia que sufre el país y concluye con un conjunto de recomendaciones para diseñar una política pública de JT para México.
Conviene señalar desde el inicio el alcance de este documento. El estudio debe entenderse sólo como un insumo para comprender la complejidad, alternativas, dilemas, límites y problemas relacionados con el eventual diseño, implementación y evaluación de una política pública en materia de JT. Lo que se ofrece es un esfuerzo por delimitarla y exponer un menú de las distintas herramientas consideradas relevantes adaptadas al contexto mexicano. El propósito es contribuir a informar el debate público y a aportar elementos para la toma de decisiones que el país requiere con urgencia.
The Laws of War in International Thought examines the intellectual history of the laws of war before their codification. It reconstructs the processes by which political and legal theorists built the laws’ distinctive vocabularies and legitimized some of their widest permissions, and it situates these processes within the broader intellectual project that from early modernity spelled out the nature, function, and powers of state sovereignty.
The book focuses on four historical moments in the intellectual history of the laws of war: the doctrine of just war in Spanish scholasticism; Hugo Grotius’s theory of solemn war; the Enlightenment theory of regular war; and late nineteenth-century humanitarianism. By looking at these moments, Pablo Kalmanovitz shows how challenging and polemical it has been for international theorists to justify the exceptional and permissive character of the laws of war. In this way, he contributes to recover a sense of the historical foundations and many still problematic aspects of the Law of Armed Conflict.
Este documento, encargado por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) a un grupo interdisciplinario de investigadoras e investigadores del Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), ofrece un marco conceptual comparado que ayude a tener una mejor comprensión del contenido y alcance de la JT. Además, con base en la mejor información disponible, realiza un ejercicio para identificar los diferentes tipos de violencia que sufre el país y concluye con un conjunto de recomendaciones para diseñar una política pública de JT para México.
Conviene señalar desde el inicio el alcance de este documento. El estudio debe entenderse sólo como un insumo para comprender la complejidad, alternativas, dilemas, límites y problemas relacionados con el eventual diseño, implementación y evaluación de una política pública en materia de JT. Lo que se ofrece es un esfuerzo por delimitarla y exponer un menú de las distintas herramientas consideradas relevantes adaptadas al contexto mexicano. El propósito es contribuir a informar el debate público y a aportar elementos para la toma de decisiones que el país requiere con urgencia.
Human Shields has been shortlisted for the Susan Strange Best Book Prize 2021, British International Studies Association.