Legal exclusion of both sides removed contentious issues from practical politics

Evidence

For Chaumont, it is a matter, not of bringing about an anachronistic return to a chivalric ideal but, on the contrary, of an attempt to integrate the parameters of contemporary asymmetrical conflicts within the law on armed conflicts, and to do so in a realistic way. His central preoccupation is the following: combatants deprived by law of any legitimate possibility of fighting no longer have any pressing reason to conform with the principles of a law that itself excepts them from any role except that of targets to be hit. Chaumont’s concern is pragmatic: if the aim of the law on armed conflict is to encourage the parties involved to moderate their violence and, in particular, to regulate non-conventional violence, one must not, in order to include them in the law, impose upon them rules the immediate consequence of which is to exclude them from it. What are at stake are the pragmatic conditions for the effectiveness of the law in its capacity as an instrument designed to regulate armed violence in this age of asymmetrical conflicts. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1040 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Placing both conflict parties outside the law silenced the Jewish question politically; Law that excludes adversaries from fighting fails to restrain their violence — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1040; Legal exclusion publicly approved was a precondition for the Final Solution. — Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, 532 (+1 more)

Related

• Law that excludes adversaries from fighting fails to restrain their violence (similarity 0.83)
• Outlawed combatants lose all incentive to obey war’s rules (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Law that excludes adversaries from fighting fails to restrain their violence #expands (0.75) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1040