Last week's "Italian" theme began with such "intenational relaions" term (irredentist), and its final quote had another (uti possidetis). That subject this week's theme.
uti possidetis – the principle that unless otherwise stated:
1. upon a peace treaty, each belligerent keeps the captured territories then holds
2. when a political subdivision achieves independence, its international boundaries are simply the previous administrative boundaries (Black's Law Dictionary)
[Late Latin; literally "as you possess", or more fully, "as you now possess it".]
The second usage is far more frequent, though on-line dictionaries omit it. Yesterday's quote and the first quote today illustrate the former sense; we then illustrate the latter.
– Christopher Duffy, Red Storm on the Reich: The Soviet March on Germany, 1945
... a presumption that often runs against self-determination … Uti possidetis arose from an international consensus that States created through decolonization should normally maintain the external colonial borders, regardless of the tribal, ethnic, religious, or political affiliations of those who had been colonized. The attraction of the principle lies in its promotion of stability, by disfavoring unpredictable and excessive fragmentation.
– Gregory H. Fox, Democratic Governance and International Law
The disputed islands and islets range from small to tiny, are uniformly unattractive, waterless, and habitable only with great difficulty [, but] they straddle what has been, since the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, one of the most important and busiest seaways in the world. Yemen introduced the doctrine of uti possidetis ...: "[o]n the dismemberment of an empire like the Ottoman Empire, there is a presumption that the boundaries of the independent states which replace the Empire will correspond to the boundaries of the administrative units of which the dismembered Empire was constituted."
- Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Oct. 9, 1998
balkanized; Balkanized– fragmented into small and hostile units
[From the political division of the Balkans in the early 20th century.]
The term originally was originally limited to political fragmentation of a region, but the broader use, illustrated below, now the more common. The dictionaries, particularly AHD, have given little attention to that expanded meaning.
– New Republic, Feb. 3, 1995
quote:I'd suggest a minor change to this definition: fragmented into small and mutually hostile units.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
How do we tell whether a usage is a cultural reference, or is a "word"? I have no answer. The dictionaries do not list what follows as a "word", but you can consider the citations and make your own decision.
Munich – shortsighted and often dishonorable appeasement of a tyrant
[After the Munich Conference of 1938. But sometimes used to refer to the murder of 11 Israeli athletes the Munich Olympics, Summer 1972.]
– James Taranto, Wall Street Journal on-line, March 12, 2002
The transition reflects a pendulum swing between the "no more Munichs" syndrome – no more appeasement of aggressors and dictators – and the "no more Vietnams" syndrome – no more plunging America into Third Word quagmires."
– Daniel Schorr, New Leader, Jan. 13, 1997
[Discussing Slobodan Milosevic:] The determination of the previous generation of American policymakers to allow "no more Munichs" led to the Vietnam War. The determination of this generation to allow ''no more Vietnams'' promises another Munich.
– William Pfaff, Democracies in Confusion, or How to Guarantee Another Munich, International Herald Tribune, May 6, 1999
And any move in this direction by a U.S. president would lead to conservative cries of another Munich.
– James Ridgeway, Looking Backward, Village Voice, July 29, 2004
I suppose this word isn't "international relations", but the first quote is, and the word is fun. Says Oxford:
frogmarch – to force (someone) to walk forward by pinning their [sic] arms from behind
[Why "frog"? The term originally (mid-1800s) meant to carry an uncooperative drunk, prisoner or the like face down, one person holding onto each limb. Hence, splayed out like a pinned-down frog.]
– Joseph Wilson, disgruntled former ambassador, much-quoted in the press (2003)
The twins forced the sweater over his head, knocking his glasses askew. "And you're not sitting with the prefects today, either," said George. "Christmas is a time for family." They frog-marched Percy from the room, his arms pinned to his side by his sweater.
– J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
Rowling: That's when two people stand on either side of the third person and they force them to walk along. It's like you're under arrest.
prisoner of war – a captured member of one's sides armed forces (or of an organized resistance movement, in certain circumstances)
(The specific circumstances: they must have a commander responsible for them; wear clear identification (as by uniform); carry their ams openly; and adhere to the laws of war)
Many think a POW is "anyone captured in war". This is in essence what you'll find in OED, MW, AHD, Encarta, and on the Red Cross website, but it is erroneous. The Third Geneva Convention , at Artcle 4.A., defines that term as I have summarized, and is quite clear that only the military (and certain other that behave "like a military"), get POW status. Indeed, it makes sense that a captured soldier would have special rights beyond those of a civilian. For example, a soldier kills the enemy, within his job, cannot be charged with murder for those killings. (Article 118).
In the press, some very strong criticism seems to have been based on the mistaken notion that "POW" means anyone captured in war.
So we take the prisoners we've captured, and suddenly announce that they are not prisoners of war after all, because this isn't really a war we've been fighting. Therefore the prisoners are "illegal combatants," and we don't have to treat them in accord with the Geneva Convention on POWs. This is why a lot of people hate us. For the sheer bloody arrogance of having it both ways all the time. For thinking that we are above the rules, that we can laugh at treaties, that we can do whatever we want
The International Committee of the Red Cross said it considered al Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war, "They were captured in combat and we consider them prisoners of war," ICRC spokesman Darcy Christen told Reuters.
– CNN, Feb. 8, 2002
illegal combatant (or unlawful combatant) – one who is a combatant but would not, if captured, meet the standards of a prisoner of war
Geneva 3 deals only with POWs, and provides no name for with captured combatants who do no qualify as POWs. But the concept and term are long-recognized in international law. The U.S. Supreme Court explained it in 1942, in ex parte Quirin.
*A number of writers (exampls below) state that "illegal combatant" is merely a term conveniently inventioned by President Bush. They are wrong.
--MP Jeremy Corbyn, speaking in Parliament 27 Nov 2003: The United States created a non-existent legal phrase of "illegal combatant" ...
-- Historian Chalmers Johnson, History News Network, June 14, 2004: President Bush's invention of such hitherto unknown categories as "illegal combatant"
-- The Morning Star, 28 July 2004: The Bush administration has gone so far as to invent the new category of "illegal combatant" to excuse its own refusal to treat enemies captured on the battlefield according to the Geneva convention.This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordcrafter,
casus belli – an event that provokes or is used to justify war
– John Keegan, The Second World War
On the way there was a fight between two of the tramps. They had quarrelled overnight (there was some silly casus belli about one saying to the other, "Bull shit," which was taken for Bolshevik-a deadly insult), and they fought it out in a field. A dozen of us stayed to watch them.
– George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London
Quote "...*A number of writers (exampls below) state that "illegal combatant" is merely a term conveniently inventioned by President Bush. They are wrong...."
I think the point at issue here is not whether or not the term is accurate but whether is applies to those captured and interned.
The USA started a war against Afghanistan and Iraq; those who resisted were soldiers, fighting to defend their countries. That they might not have had the nice new uniforms and hi-tech equipment of the US forces doesn't make them any the less soldiers.
Spies and saboteurs are examples of "illegal combatants" as defined by Geneva; those captured in the field of battle (which were many, if not all, of those men presently languishing in Guantanamo Bay) should be treated as prisoners of war.
Article 5 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIII) of 1949 has an interesting spin on the problem at Gitmo: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." More info at Wikipedia.
This from the newspaper gives the author's understanding of "illegal combatant" and "prisoner of war".
"The interpretive problem for law-abiding democracies is how to hold true to the core principles that animate a treaty regime while working within a text that may not anticipate new problems. It would not surprise historians to discover that the treaty rules crafted for state-to-state wars do not always easily fit an unconventional conflict against a nonstate actor such as al Qaeda.
"The judge does not dispute that the Geneva Conventions draw an important distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants. Irregular combatants (such as saboteurs, spies and guerrillas) are accorded different protections because they fail a four-part test: The disguise themselves as civilians without distinguishing uniforms or insignia, fail to carry their arms openly, lack a responsible commander, and as a group, deliberately flout the laws of war. Lawful belligerency is also limited to combatants fighting for a state, rather than a private sponsor, At least in its attacks in East Africa and the U.S., al Quada was fighting as a private terrorist network.
"Adam Roberts, professor of international relations at Oxford, makes a suggestion that a district judge might not. 'In a struggle involving an organisation that plainly does not meet the criteria' of lawful combatants, he wrote in 2002, ' and especially where, as with Al Quada, it is not in any sense a State, it may be reasonable to proclaim that captured members are presumed not to have PoW status.'"
Ruth Wedgwood, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins.
The same article gives another term.
"[At the end of WWII] the collapse of the Axis, said the Allies, created a legal condition of debellatio -- or total defeat -- to which the Hague occupation law should not apply."
I've never seen this the word 'debellatio,' and one-look doesn't have it.
But one-look does give debellation: the act of conquering or subduing.
Columnist Tunku Varadarajan, in today's Wall Street Journal (the extracted quote does not do justice to the full column), speaking about the UN:
"All the displays of local outfits and headgear, of nonaligned rhetoric, nationalist posturing, development schemes and bright postage stamps gave color to this drama of inclusion. The truth was, of course, that many were scarcely real countries at all, their boundaries drawn up by the exigencies of colonial rule. Those boundaries were kept intact by brutal postcolonial regimes that cited the legal principle - oh, how they loved to brandish the law - of uti possidetis, a principle allowing a belligerent to claim the territory it occupies at the end of a war."
Query whether Mr. Varadarajan has conflated the two meanings of uti possiditis.This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,