Maritime Strategic Thought and International Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 152-170
Author(s):  
Gabriela A. Frei
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Service Institution ◽  
Maritime Strategy ◽  
Strategic Thought ◽  
And Control

Chapter 6 examines the development of maritime strategic thought in Great Britain from 1872 to 1914, analysing the debates at the Royal United Service Institution, which provided one of the most important forums to discuss strategic matters. The early naval strategic thinkers John and Philip Colomb set the agenda, discussing maritime strategy in the context of home and imperial defence. Later strategists, such as Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett, focused on command and control of the sea. The chapter examines not only how maritime strategic thought developed but also how the practice and codification of international maritime law shaped ideas about a future maritime conflict.

Great Britain, International Law, and the Evolution of Maritime Strategic Thought, 1856–1914

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela A. Frei
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Sea Power ◽  
Maritime Strategy ◽  
Strategic Thought

The book addresses the interaction between international maritime law and maritime strategy in a historical context, arguing that both international law and maritime strategy are based on long-term state interests. Great Britain as the predominant sea power in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shaped the relationship between international law and maritime strategy like no other power. The book explores how Great Britain used international maritime law as an instrument of foreign policy to protect its strategic and economic interests, and how maritime strategic thought evolved in parallel to the development of international legal norms. The book offers an analysis of British state practice as well as an examination of the efforts of the international community to codify international maritime law in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the predominant sea power and also the world’s largest carrier of goods, Great Britain had to balance its interests as both a belligerent and a neutral power. With the growing importance of international law in international politics, the book examines the role of international lawyers, strategists, and government officials who shaped state practice. Great Britain’s neutrality for most of the period between 1856 and 1914 influenced its state practice and its perceptions of a future maritime conflict. Yet, the codification of international maritime law at The Hague and London conferences at the beginning of the twentieth century demanded a reassessment of Great Britain’s legal position.

scholarly journals Changes in the command and control potential of European cities in 2006-2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sławomir Dorocki ◽  
Piotr Raźniak ◽  
Anna Winiarczyk-Raźniak
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Control Potential ◽  
Central Eastern Europe ◽  
European Cities ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
Local Companies ◽  
And Control

The aim of the study was to analyze changes in the command and control functions of cities in 2006 and 2016 based on the method of gravity centers. The analysis was performed both for individual sectors of the economy as well as for the European economy as a whole. The shift in the center of gravity of the studied command and control functions of cities in the direction of Central Eastern Europe is examined in the paper. The fairly recent development of CEE and European integration increasing to the east and south has triggered the relocation of many companies from west to east and has also increased the importance of local companies. It may therefore be argued that the importance of the command and control functions of cities in developing countries has also increased (Poland, Russia). There is also a related decline in the importance of the so-called blue banana region and cities in Great Britain and Germany. This is especially visible in terms of the number of corporate headquarters in the western part of the continent. However, the shift in capital is not that clear – and both German and British corporations still remain the leaders in Europe.

International Law and the Theory of War

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-200
Author(s):  
Gabriela A. Frei
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Private Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory Of War ◽  
Economic Warfare ◽  
Maritime Strategy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Theoretical Reflection

Chapter 7 explores the question of the immunity of private property from capture at sea, examining the views of its opponents and supporters. The immunity of private property at sea posed a serious challenge to sea powers—it was feared that this step would result in a further curtailment of belligerent rights. The chapter analyses the positions of the United States, Great Britain, and Germany in the first and second Hague peace conferences. The naval thinkers Alfred T. Mahan and Julian S. Corbett saw the proposal as an existential danger to waging economic warfare. Their reflection on the impact of international law on maritime strategy illustrated the limitation of the adoption of such a far-reaching proposal. The question also demanded a theoretical reflection on warfare and the chapter compares how international lawyers and strategists understood warfare and international law.

Violations of Maritime Law by the Allied Powers During the World War

1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Wilford Garner
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Naval Warfare ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
The World

The above is the title of an article by. Mr. E. G. Trimble in the January (1930) issue of this Journal, which contains a rather severe indictment of the Allied Powers, and particularly of Great Britain, for having violated during the World War various well-settled rules of international law regarding the conduct of maritime warfare. I do not deny at all that there were violations of certain rules and practices which had come to be generally, if not universally, recognized as a part of the customary law of nations—violations not only by the Allied Powers, but on an even larger scale by their opponents, which latter, however, the author passes over in silence. But, in my opinion, his charges in some cases are not well founded either upon principles of international law, reason or the logic of the actual conditions under which the rules had to be applied. In presenting here a different view of the case, my object is not so much to defend the Allied Powers against the charges contained in Mr. Trimble's indictment as to reaffirm and maintain views which I expressed during the war regarding certain rights of belligerents in naval warfare, especially under the peculiar conditions which prevailed during that war—rights the exercise of which I believe was justified in principle by those conditions, whatever may have been the opinion of statesmen and prize judges a century ago, and which would have been claimed and exercised by Germany had the geographical situation as between her and Great Britain been reversed.

Applying Effective Control to the Conduct of UN Forces

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charuka Ekanayake ◽  
Susan Harris Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Command And Control ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Control Structures ◽  
Core Issue ◽  
And Control

Responsibility is a notion that is central to all legal systems. Its operation in international law, however, has been complicated by (inter alia) the complexity of the operative rules, as well as the intricate factual dynamics on which it is called upon to operate. Such complications often create confusion, mistrust and even accountability gaps in important areas. This article deals with one such area: responsibility for the conduct of United Nations (‘UN’) troops. It commences with an analysis of the notion of responsibility in international law before elaborating the factual dynamics underpinning the relevant legal discussion comprised, inter alia, of the troop contribution frameworks, command and control structures, and the execution of UN orders. The article will then proceed to its core issue: how responsibility for acts directly perpetrated by UN forces (in contrast to other forms of responsibility pertaining to, for instance, aiding and assisting or directing the acts of another) should be apportioned.

Violations of Maritime Law by The Allied Powers During The World War

1930 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Trimble
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
International Law ◽  
British Government ◽  
World War ◽  
Maritime Law ◽  
Naval Warfare ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The World

Immediately after the outbreak of the World War in 1914, Secretary of State Bryan wisely approached the belligerent governments proposing that both sides agree to conduct their naval warfare in accordance with the rules embodied in the Declaration of London. This document was drawn up at the London Naval Conference called by Great Britain in 1908, and was signed by the delegates of all the nations represented. The conference agreed that the rules contained in the document “correspond in substance with the generally recognized principles of international law.” The Declaration never became legally binding on the nations, however, having failed of ratification by the British Government itself. Legally, therefore, Great Britain was not bound by it in 1914, except in so far as it embodied preexisting rules of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document