If the circumstances giving rise to the war itself cannot remove the obligations a nation has, can the actions of a participant (such as a guerrilla) revoke protections of the laws of war? The reason George Davis argues in favor of that proposition is that he views the law as being an agreement among states, and for that reason also agrees with the “excellent reason” for the legal standard. “Laws” in that sense are rules which are enforced by somebody (states), distinct from morals which may be merely internalized as good things by actors.
For a different take on international law, see Stephan Kinsella, who thinks libertarians in particular should be enthusiastic about its freedom from the constraints of positivism that shackle municipal legislation, and its focus on justice.
If the circumstances giving rise to the war itself cannot remove the obligations a nation has, can the actions of a participant (such as a guerrilla) revoke protections of the laws of war? The reason George Davis argues in favor of that proposition is that he views the law as being an agreement among states, and for that reason also agrees with the “excellent reason” for the legal standard. “Laws” in that sense are rules which are enforced by somebody (states), distinct from morals which may be merely internalized as good things by actors.
For a different take on international law, see Stephan Kinsella, who thinks libertarians in particular should be enthusiastic about its freedom from the constraints of positivism that shackle municipal legislation, and its focus on justice.