Abstract
Part II of this article develops the argument that in a century of industrialised warfare, the international peace architecture (IPA) was caught in a series of contradictions. It was drawn into a delicate balancing act of expanding rights and decolonizing former empires, building law and international institutions, making peace and managing war. Critical arguments emerged about appropriate responses to these issues, drawing on, but also heavily constrained by, their genesis in the ‘Greats’. Part II of this article examines this contradictory process in greater detail.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Journal | Civil Wars |
Early online date | 23 Sept 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 23 Sept 2022 |