But such exceptions pale in comparison to the vast conquests that earlier great powers conducted, conquests that were readily accepted by their counterparts and by the newly conquered peoples as well. At first glance, therefore, their argument seems entirely plausible. Unfortunately, the evidence Hathaway and Shapiro present does not come close to proving their case. Although they tend to avoid using clear causal language, the novelty of The Internationalists lies in the ambitious causal claim the authors are making.
They maintain the peace pact and the norms it represented caused a far-reaching change in patterns of warfare. But as we are all taught at the beginning of grad school if not before a simple correlation between A and B — in this case between passage of the peace pact and dramatic decline in war and conquest — does not demonstrate that one caused the other. Consider the vast devastation the United States wreaked on Indochina from to killing hundreds of thousands of people and poisoning the environment with herbicides , or the vast bloodletting that occurred between Iran and Iraq from to Nor have the norms embodied in the peace pact or the United Nations Charter prevented great powers like the United States from attacking other countries without prior approval from the U.
Security Council, even though doing so is a clear violation of international law. More importantly, even if one accepts their data about the decline of war and conquest — and I do — it does not follow that the Kellogg-Briand Pact was responsible. As legions of scholars have previously argued, the decline in war may be due to the invention of nuclear weapons , which inhibit war by making it both less necessary and more dangerous. Or maybe the cause is rising economic interdependence, because states can now get what they need by trading instead of by taking.
It could also be due to the spread of democracy, or even as John Mueller argued in his book Retreat from Doomsday due to shifting cultural attitudes about war among the major powers. Or perhaps it is some combination of all of these things.
But if so, then why should we conclude the peace pact was the critical ingredient? To their credit, Hathaway and Shapiro do devote some space to addressing some of these alternatives, and they offer brief accounts for why they do not believe these alternatives fully capture or explain the patterns they observe.
But what is really needed is an attempt to weigh the relative impact of these other possible causes against their own preferred choice. Is it 60 percent, 25 percent, 3 percent, or what? Not until certain leaders in the peace movement, notably Butler, began to generate widespread public support for Briand's proposal did the government become involved. But by the middle of June , France and the United States had begun diplomatic conversations aimed at reaching the sort of agreement Briand had proposed in his address.
The draft contained just two articles: the first declared that France and the United States renounced war "as an instrument of their national policy towards each other," and the second declared that all conflicts between the two nations would be settled only by "pacific means. State Department were uncomfortable about entering into such an agreement with France alone, fearing that it would amount to an indirect alliance that would deprive the United States of the freedom to act if France were to go to war with another country.
Instead, U. On December 28, therefore, Kellogg told Briand that the United States was prepared to enter into negotiations with France to construct a treaty that would condemn war and renounce it as an instrument of national policy; when concluded, the treaty would be open to signature by all nations.
Password Please enter your Password. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution. You could not be signed in, please check and try again.
Sign in with your library card Please enter your library card number. Reference entries Kellogg—Briand Pact 27 Aug. Explore Blog Reference library Collections Shop. Share: Facebook Twitter Email Print page. For Germany the Kellogg-Briand Pact was significant. Secondly it showed that Germany was viewed as serious power that could be respected and trusted. Our subjects Our Subjects.
0コメント