English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Why have major Western powers committed to international laws of war? Given recent American conduct amid the War on Terror, lively debate rages over this important question in scholarly and policy circles, featuring arguments that range from sheer hypocrisy and self-interest to domestic politics and international social pressures. Through a careful study of the British and American process of deciding whether to sign and ratify the core modern law-of-war treaties – the Geneva Conventions of 1949 – and to do so with or without reservations, this article demonstrates that international social conformity pressures and instrumental motives jointly influenced these countries’ signature and ratification decisions. American and British reasoning was neither as self-serving as some realists presume nor as aloof to international social dynamics as rational institutionalist and liberal scholars commonly allow. The article calls for the further refinement of the theoretical debate on state commitment to international law of humane conduct, including humanitarian and human rights law, and encourages the pursuit of alternative methods, namely archival sources, to answer these and other enduring puzzles.

Conforming Instrumentalists: Why the USA and the United Kingdom Joined the 1949 Geneva Conventions