Twitter prob not right format for this discussion but if you have time, please elaborate, not sure what you mean by 'banalized'
-
-
Replying to @ChaseMadar @ChMadar
well, historically, the strategic issues were those that people focused on most, until rise of IHL and human rights movements
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natkpowell @ChMadar
say, post-WW2, but arguably began in 19th century
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natkpowell @ChMadar
but the problem is that divorcing strategy of conflict from crimes of conflict is that an excessive focus on strategic issues
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natkpowell @ChMadar
can easily lead public and policymakers to downgrade the human rights dimensions, which plays into hands of more violent actors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natkpowell @ChMadar
I mean, I do think that human rights activism has depoliticized conflict in really damaging ways--if that's your point I agree
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @natkpowell @ChMadar
but that doesn't mean crimes shouldn't be central to analysis.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @natkpowell
But what about the non-criminal carnage, espesh of noncombatants, that is licensed by IHL? Isn't that often majority of victims?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChaseMadar @ChMadar
meaning things like "collateral damage" ?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.