"Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of using military action, against both Greenland and Canada. These threats were often taken as fanciful. The fact that he has, successfully, used military force to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power has lent some plausibility to these threats. Crucially, these military possibilities have been justified almost exclusively with reference to what Trump's administration sees as America's national interests."
"This view of warfare is radically different from the one championed by the U.S. for much of the 20th century. Most notably, it repudiates the legal principle that informed the Nuremberg trials: that military force cannot be justified on the basis of national self-interest alone. Those trials, set up after World War II to prosecute the leaders of the Nazi regime, were foundational for modern international law; Trump, however, seems to disregard or reject the legal ideas the Nuremberg tribunal sought to establish."
President Donald Trump indicated willingness to abandon his threat to take over Greenland by force and expressed a preference for negotiation over invasion while continuing to assert that the United States should acquire ownership of the self-governing territory. He has repeatedly raised the possibility of military action against Greenland and Canada. His prior use of force to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has lent plausibility to such threats. These military possibilities have been justified almost exclusively by appeals to American national interests, with ownership seen as necessary to protect those interests. This stance repudiates postwar legal principles, including Nuremberg's rejection of aggressive war and the Kellogg-Briand Pact's prohibition of war for national advantage.
Read at The Conversation
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]