• 4 Posts
  • 43 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 26th, 2022

help-circle


  • The answer is actually “a mix of all three,” and it really depends on which conflict you’re looking at.

    For Afghanistan, it was exactly the first one: the only time Article 5, the “attack on one is an attack on all” clause, has ever been invoked. That happened after 9/11 and led directly to the NATO-led mission there.

    Yugoslavia in 1999 was a different beast entirely; that was NATO waging an air campaign without a UN Security Council mandate, operating far outside its traditional defensive boundaries to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

    When you look at Iraq in 2003, NATO as an organization sat it out, but the war was obviously started by key NATO members like the US and UK, and the alliance itself only stepped in later to help train Iraqi security forces.

    Finally, the 2011 Libya intervention was more of a formal NATO operation, but it fits the mold of an unofficial proxy war of sorts, as the alliance used a UN mandate to protect civilians as the basis for a bombing campaign that ultimately helped rebels overthrow Gaddafi






  • The source

    I am not the user you where interacting with, but these ideas can be found in Carl Schmitt in his work The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.

    This is because The Nomos of the Earth provides his most comprehensive exploration of how sovereign authority and geographic space are legally and historically intertwined. The previous comments are about authority’s spatial claim, and this book is precisely where Schmitt develops that idea at length.

    An important fact to know about Carl Schmitt follows:

    In 1933, Schmitt joined the Nazi Party and used his legal and political theories to provide ideological justification for the regime. He held various positions on Nazi councils, including the Prussian State Council and the Academy for German Law, and served as president of the National Socialist Association of Legal Professionals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt

    A counterpoint

    Perhaps the most pointed philosophical counterpoint to the text’s use of “roots” comes from the work of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, which was later applied to national identity by the philosopher Édouard Glissant. His seminal work Poetics of Relation has been used by scholars across the world to understand the rapid transformation of a multicultural world.

    They critique the root as a metaphor for a singular, vertical, and exclusionary origin. Glissant argues that nations shouldn’t speak of having “roots,” as this implies one unique ancestral heritage.

    Instead, he champions the image of the rhizome (a plant with a network of interconnected, horizontal roots) because it better captures a multicultural reality where identity is not fixed but is a dynamic, relational, and non-hierarchical network.

    Where the text’s concept of “roots” traces a lineage back to a point of origin, the rhizome celebrates the connections made in the present.