
Outlawing War? It Actually Worked - mpweiher
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/opinion/sunday/outlawing-war-kellogg-briand.html?smid=tw-share
======
marcoperaza
This is so wrong. The real reason why wars of conquest mostly ended after WW2
is that the United States has positioned troops and weapons in all the hot
spots. That, and all the major powers now have nukes.

This is actually a great example of the bullshit quantitative analysis that is
sweeping through academia. That something was signed in 1928, and then that
the world experienced extraordinary peace after WW2 (the Pax Americana), is
NOT evidence that the former led to the latter.

~~~
wahern
There was never extraordinary peace. Quite the opposite. Tens of millions died
in conflict post-WWII. The only thing that changed was conflicts no longer
resulted in territorial acquisition as a general matter, and that split can be
traced back to 1928, not to post-WWII.

The notion of the U.S. as a global policeman has some credibility, but only
going back to the 1990s. Before then the U.S.'s reach ended where the Soviet
Union's began, and there were plenty of proxy conflicts.

~~~
acover
Source?

This analysis seems to suggest we are in a period of relative peace. [0]

[0] - [https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-
peace/](https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/)

~~~
wahern
Arguably we are, but conflict has hardly ended. Even according to that chart,
only in the past few decades do we even seem to fall appreciably below the
average, especially if you exclude outliers like WWI and WWII.

My point is merely that there's little reason to chalk up the very recent
changes to the U.S. being a global policeman. The more complex truth is all of
these things: atomic weapons making World War too risky, increase in global
economic ties, increasingly democratic governance, the role of hegemonic
powers (including but not exclusively the U.S.), and of course the U.S. as the
pre-eminent hegemonic power.

This re-analysis of the effect of the Kellogg–Briand Pact is quite persuasive,
but only in the context of the above. Also, see my post else thread regarding
the complex cause+effect relationship. A treaty is a culmination of historic
events; a culmination with consequences, but not magical in itself.

------
danarmak
The article doesn't even attempt to show a causal connection; it just assumes
that because a treaty was signed, and then things changed, the treaty must
have caused it. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I'd rather point to the massive geopolitical differences that occurred during
that time period. The Cold War, decolonization (mostly due to the world wars),
the growth of the EU and of the USSR (both of which had no internal wars) all
greatly reduced conquests.

------
smoll
This paragraph makes no sense to me:

> First, some context. Before 1928, countries had the legal right to wage war.
> If one state claimed to be victimized by another, international law
> permitted it to use force to right the wrong. International law also gave
> countries the right of conquest, meaning they could benefit from war by
> keeping its spoils, territory and, in some cases, people. The right of
> conquest did not depend on whether the conqueror was in the right. As long
> as it claimed to have been a victim, no matter how flimsy its argument, the
> conqueror became the new legal sovereign. It’s easy to see how the right to
> wage war could be, and was, abused.

First, it's saying prior to 1928, war was OK if the initiator was victimized
or it simply wanted to annex a new place. Then it says the victors needed to
make up a "flimsy" pretense of victimization in order to keep its winnings.
They used to make up flimsy arguments for why they were doing the right thing
before 1928, and still do after 1928 (cf. Russia "protecting" its people in
Crimea). What part of the "law" actually changed?

~~~
wahern
The part that legitimized territorial acquisition--the right of conquest.
Flimsy excuses are still accepted for waging war, but not for acquiring
territory.

It's an interesting notion. However, I suspect the cause+effect is much
murkier. Colonialism had all but ended by 1928. Rising powers like the U.S.
never had much interest in territorial acquisition. In fact, my naive
understanding of world history is that territorial conquest (distinct from
cultural/political/economic conquest) was largely a modern European thing,
perhaps a consequence of the Treaty of Westphalia which forced European powers
to think of conquest in very black & white terms.

~~~
cperciva
The US never had much interest in territorial acquisition? Ever heard of
"manifest destiny"?

~~~
microcolonel
This whole chain of ideas is ridiculous. Conquest is inherently and naturally
legitimate; because you can not enforce laws when the prevailing power doesn't
respect them.

Sure, it sucks, and yeah there has been a coincidental reduction in wars of
conquest after these treaty signings, but one does not make a peanut butter
sandwich simply by owning bread and peanut butter.

Conquest is down because of a) alliances b) the nuclear deterrent and c)
market liberalization, causing an increase in the ability of people to make a
living where they are, lessening the relative value of conquest.

~~~
wahern
But the prevailing power has less incentive to skirt laws if nobody else
recognizes the legitimacy of their conquests. No country is so powerful that
they can simply ignore how the rest of the world responds.

Might makes right is a truism, yes, but only under the presumption that
somebody is so mighty that everybody else has no choice but to fall into line
and internalize the new order. Things are never that cut-and-dry. Vietnam,
Afghanistan (now and then), and Iraq should have made it abundantly clear that
might makes right is not a concept that has real world application.

What really matters is whether and how everybody will internalize a new
political order. Power is a big part of that equation--and relative power is
perhaps one benchmark by which many people will choose whether to internalize
things--but it's nowhere near sufficient alone.

------
ars
In exchange for no more conquests we got never-ending-wars.

Wars that just drag on for years, with no real end possible. This is
especially common in the ME.

Sometimes countries need to change in order to relive tension. Make that
impossible and it's non-stop war.

~~~
astrodust
As bad as these wars are, they're trivial compared to the endless misery that
Europe inflicted on itself and the world in general for hundreds of years.

Multi-generation wars have been the norm ever since there were two
civilizations big enough to fight one.

------
angersock
Now, it's arguable whether or not in the long term that such a pact was
desirable--redrawing borders in the 1800s let Europe sort out a lot of its
problems (see also, Prussia).

~~~
colejohnson66
Redrawing borders after WWI and WWII is a big cause of the conflict in the
Middle East if I’m not mistaken

------
e12e
More like nation states as a vehicle for occupation and acquisition,
exploitation (privatisation) of resources played out its role as corporations
and capital interest became more globalised. There's a school of thought that
think we're heading towards a "normalisation" of as war as a private
enterprise, as before national armies were the norm. Where military power is
primarily mercenary, and strategic interest is dictated by private actors.

Sean McFate discuss some of this trend in his book "the Modern Mercenary".

[ed: One might view the use of force in establishing the keystone xl pipeline
against native american interests as a microexample of how this might play out
not only in "unlawful regions", but even in peaceful, regulated nations, such
as the USA]

