| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Keshavarz, Mahmoud, 1985-, et al.
(author)
-
Targeted by Persuasion : Military Uniforms and the Legal Matter of Killing in War
- 2019
-
In: LAW TEXT CULTURE. - : UNIV WOLLONGONG. - 1322-9060 .- 2200-7121. ; 23, s. 223-239
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In 1960 the CBS network broadcasted a 20-minute film titled 'How to Kill People: A Problem of Design'. In the film, George Nelson, a well-known American industrial designer, presents an argument concerning the historical development of weaponry design. Beginning with prehistoric stone weapons and moving on to rocket launchers and nuclear bombs, Nelson shows how the distance between the operator of these weapons and those subject to their violence has expanded greatly as weapons have become more complicated. Describing the development from a simple stone to a stone club and then to a bow and arrow, Nelson states: 'When the designer comes into the picture there's a tremendous improvement in the product. It's more interesting to look at. [The attacker] doesn't have to move quite as close. And the force of the blow is greatly increased' (1961: 47).
|
|
| 3. |
- Keshavarz, Mahmoud, et al.
(author)
-
Targeted by Persuasion : Military uniforms and the legal matter of killing in war
- 2019
-
In: Law Text Culture. - Wollongong, NSW : Legal Intersections Research Centre. - 1322-9060. ; 23, s. 223-239
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this paper, we argue that the legitimation of killing in war is not simply formed by adherence to certainlegal requirements that exist apart from and prior to war; instead, we suggest, the law of armed conflict initself cannot but operate through admitting certain materials onto the battlefield as distinctively legalmaterials. Using the theory of legal materiality, we show that the military uniform is a legal material thatmakes the legal matter of legitimate targeting intelligible to law. This process happens through the waysin which the uniform shapes the possibility of visual recognition and differentiation in order to makecertain bodies targetable and others not targetable. We refer to this visual recognition and differentiationas a domain of persuasion. We show that the historical, functional and visual attributes of the uniform, asa design artefact, produce a convincing domain of distinction for the attacking agent. Finally, we turn toinsurgency, arguing that the legal matter of targeting is shaped not only by the presence, use andmanipulation of this legal material but also by the absence of it.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
