How international legal humanitarianism legitimises war and the deprivation of human life: a critique

This thesis argues that the international humanitarian vision comprises two main, antagonistic intellectual traditions: one that seeks to abolish war and another that deems such an endeavour hopeless and is instead devoted to regulating it. It suggests that the latter, termed the ‘Regulated War tradition’, has become hegemonic today. The thesis reveals the discursive strategies by which this tradition legitimises war and sustains its own hegemony. Through its hegemony, the Regulated War tradition defines the structure of international humanitarian legal argument which oscillates between two rhetorical poles: the rhetoric of aspiration, advocating for a more protective interpretation of the law, and the rhetoric of limitation, justifying a more permissive reading based on the so-called necessities of war. Having uncovered the grammar of international humanitarian legal discourse, this thesis advances an ideology critique of the Regulated War tradition by shedding light on the discursive ways in which it legitimises the deprivation of human life. The thesis contends that the hegemony of this tradition has led to the rise of instrumental humanitarian reason—a calculative logic that sidesteps the fundamental question of why human beings kill one another, focusing instead on how they should be killed. It concludes with an immanent critique of the Regulated War tradition, aiming to chart a path toward the realisation of the humanitarian promise to safeguard human life.