100 years of war and conflict
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
100 years of war and conflict
ANDREW M. DORMAN AND TRACEY GERMAN *
With Chatham House founded in the immediate aftermath of the First World
War, it was perhaps inevitable that its journal, first published a century ago, would
focus on the war and its consequences. The First World War was portrayed as ‘the
war to end all wars’, but tragically this proved to be a false hope, as Russia’s recent
invasion of Ukraine reminds us. War, and conflict more broadly defined, have
been a constant theme of International Relations and it is interesting to see the
plethora of academic disciplines that consider its various aspects. Indeed, there are
both departments of war studies and, conversely, departments of peace studies,
aimed at deepening our understanding of this phenomena of human activity.
Within the various fields of study, we have seen the emergence first of strategic
studies and then subsequently security studies and, more recently, a variety of
offshoots ranging from critical security studies to critical military studies.
In this archive collection, we look back at how war and conflict have been
covered by International Affairs and what this tells us about both the subject and
how it has been examined. It is perhaps not surprising that such a broad subject
has inspired a large volume of material and bringing some sort of order to the
literature was a challenging task. Our aim was to select articles that reflect the
various debates and discussions covered within the pages of International Affairs.
Throughout this review, we used a broad definition of what constitutes war and
its consequences, in order to reflect the breadth of the literature.
For ease, this archive collection has therefore been subdivided into six themes,
with each theme containing four articles:
1. Disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation
2. Ethics, law and the containment of conflict
3. Military strategy, organization and planning
4. Nuclear strategy
5. Individual wars and crises
6. Future of warfare
* This is an introduction to a collection of articles from the International Affairs archives, available at academic.
oup.com/ia in April 2022. These archive collections bring together voices from across the past century to
explore issues that continue to impact our lives.
International Affairs
Introduction to an online collection of articles, April 2022
doi: 10.1093/ia/iiac059Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
These themes represent just one of the many ways of dividing up the war
cake and in themselves they remain contentious. For us, they reflect the litera-
ture contained within International Affairs rather than any empirical judgement of
relative importance.
In looking at the journal’s authors and their subject matter it is important
to remember the context in which International Affairs was published. The early
contributors reflected the original membership of Chatham House and also the
particular interests of what we now call think tanks. In the early years, Chatham
House, and therefore International Affairs, tended to focus less on what might be
termed military studies and more on the international environment and preventing
another world war.
Moreover, the majority of articles published were versions of papers presented
at Chatham House meetings, including transcripts of questions and answers (until
the Chatham House rule came into use and the subsequent discussions went off the
record). The speakers were, in large part, those interested in international relations,
including members of both Houses of Parliament, diplomats, politicians from
across the globe visiting London, academics and the broader London intelligentsia.
Inevitably, this audience was quite narrowly defined, being predominantly male,
white and from the upper echelons of society. This did not mean that other voices
were not heard, and in fact International Affairs would publish pieces by women
and authors of colour in its first decade, but the overall balance was quite skewed.
Interestingly, the professional background of authors publishing in the journal
has also changed. In the early days, the majority of contributors were practitioners,
those with a general interest in international affairs and the occasional historian.
Today, the journal’s author base is almost entirely academics, drawn from across the
social sciences, with occasional contributions from practitioners. As a result, despite
the journal’s efforts in recent years to publish more articles by women and academics
from underrepresented groups, contributors to this collection are predominantly
male and white. It is also interesting to note that some of the themes continue to
be dominated by this small cohort. As some of the recent articles selected here
argue, until a more inclusive debate is facilitated there will be limitations in our
understanding of war and conflict. We can only hope that this collection might,
in some small way, encourage others to join in the debates surrounding the subject
of war and conflict since, despite the aspirations of some of the journal’s earliest
authors, war and conflict have not been banished to the history books.
Theme 1: Disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation
Interwar period
With the journal’s first volume published so soon after the end of the First
World War, it was perhaps not surprising that in its first decade articles on war
focused almost entirely on disarmament.1 In general, contributions drew on a
1
Frederick Maurice, ‘’Lord Esher’s proposals for the limitation of armaments’, International Affairs 1: 4, 1922,
2
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
strong abolitionist community who sought to eliminate various forms of warfare.
Authors include a variety of British MPs, ministers and former military officers,
such as Frederick Maurice, who had been the Director of Military Operations
for most of the First World War and W. C. Bridgeman who was then First Lord
of the Admiralty and senior naval minister2. Their main goal was to eliminate or
reduce armaments, because armaments were seen as the cause of conflict, with
some advocates suggesting that disarmament was best achieved through example.3
Slowly, the journal’s focus broadened to incorporate voices from outside
the UK, first from Canada, followed in 1931 by contribution from the German
academic and politician Otto Hoetzsch who was asked to give a German view
on disarmament. In a 1934 piece, P. J. Noel Baker, then assistant to the Presi-
dent of the World Disarmament Conference and future Nobel prize winner made
observations that typify the debate, this is included in our collection (article 1
in this collection).4 Interestingly, arms control received less attention, although
the journal published a number of articles about the various attempts to impose
limitations on naval armaments. Authors included the then Labour Prime Minister
Ramsey MacDonald, who reported on the London Naval Conference in 1930.5
Cold War
Unlike the interwar period, the Cold War and the advent of nuclear weapons
led International Affairs to engage far more with the subject of war in general. A
number of authors became regular contributors, continuing the tradition of disar-
mament advocacy.6 Perhaps unsurprising given its London base, the UK’s posses-
sion of a nuclear capability became the principal focus of the journal’s engagement
with war, with William Walker and Michael MccGwire regularly arguing for
the UK to get out of the nuclear game.7 An interesting contribution to highlight
was made in 1956 by Denis Healey, then a Labour MP and later Britain’s longest-
serving Secretary of State for Defence and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Healey
pp. 101–12; Frederick Maurice, ‘Disarmament’, International Affairs 5: 3, 1926, pp. 117–34; W. C. Bridgeman,
‘Naval disarmament’, International Affairs 6: 6, 1927, pp. 335–49; Lord Cushendun, ‘Disarmament’, International
Affairs 7: 2, 1928, pp. 77–83; Arthur Ponsonby, ‘Disarmament by example’, International Affairs 7: 4, 1928, pp.
225–39.
2
Maurice, ‘Lord Esher’s proposals for the limitation of armaments’, pp. 101–12; Maurice, ‘Disarmament’, pp.
117–34; Bridgeman, ‘Naval disarmament’, pp. 335–49.
3
Ponsonby, ‘Disarmament by example’, pp. 225–40.
4
Otto Hoetzsch, ‘The German view of disarmament’, International Affairs 11: 1, 1932, pp. 40–54; P. J. Noel
Baker, ‘Disarmament’, International Affairs 13: 1, 1934, pp. 3–25.
5
J. Ramsay MacDonald and Neil Malcom, ‘The London Naval Conference, 1930’, International Affairs 9: 4, 1930,
pp. 429–51.
6
Richard Scott, ‘A ban on nuclear tests: the course of the negotiations, 1958-1962’, International Affairs 38: 4,
Oct. 1962, pp. 501–10; Adam Rapacki, ‘The Polish plan for a nuclear-free zone today, International Affairs 39:
1, 1963, pp. 1–12, 36 and 168; Kenneth Younger, ‘The spectre of nuclear proliferation’, International Affairs 42:
1, 1966, pp. 14–23; Ian Brownlie, ‘Nuclear proliferation: some problems of control’, International Affairs 42:
4, 600–608; David Vital, ‘Double-talk or double-think? A comment on the draft non-proliferation treaty’,
International Affairs 44: 3, pp. 419–33; Leonard E. Schwartz, ‘Perspective on Pugwash’, International Affairs 43:
3, 1967, pp. 498–515.
7
Michael MccGwire, ‘Deterrence: the problem—not the solution’, International Affairs 62: 1, 1986, pp. 55–70;
Norman Dombey, David Fischer and William Walker, ‘Becoming a non-nuclear weapon state: Britain, the
NPT and safeguards’, International Affairs 63: 2, 1987, pp. 191–204.
3
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
was commenting on the 1955 Geneva Summit which had brought the leaders of
the United States, France, the Soviet Union and United Kingdom together to
discuss issues related to the Cold War.8 Although on first appearances the Geneva
Summit ended in failure, it also laid the foundations for future bilateral US–Soviet
summits and later arms control agreements.9
However, arms control rather than disarmament became the journal’s focus.10
Starting with the SALT and ABM treaties, articles went on to cover the debates
around the nuclear balance in Europe and NATO’s decision to deploy Pershing II
and ground-launched cruise missiles. A good example of this is Jane Sharp’s 1987
piece—the second article in this collection. Here, she reflected on the future of
arms control after the failed Reykjavik summit.11 A further subset of the litera-
ture engaged with British and, at times French, nuclear capabilities.12 Among the
contributors was Sir Michael Quinlan, then Permanent Under-Secretary of State
in the Ministry of Defence, who was often referred to as the godfather of British
nuclear strategy.13 Interestingly, the nuclear emphasis meant that other weapons
of mass destruction received comparatively little attention.14
A new literature on non-proliferation began emerging in the 1960s. It was
initially focused on the prospects and then the signing of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), which came into force in 1970.15 For example, in 1966 Ian Brownlie,
a fellow of Wadham College Oxford, considered some of the problems of control-
ling nuclear proliferation.16 The detonation of a Chinese nuclear weapon raised
the spectre of nuclear proliferation to India and Pakistan, and India’s nuclear
dilemma was outlined in a piece by Michael Edwardes in 1967.17 Separately, H.
Jon Rosenbaum and Glenn M. Cooper examined how Brazil was initially opposed
to nuclear proliferation.18 Hedley Bull, writing in the aftermath of the first Indian
8
Denis Healey, ‘“When shrimps learn to whistle”: thoughts after Geneva’, International Affairs 32: 1, 1956, pp.
1–10.
9
Mason Willrich, ‘ABM and arms control’, International Affairs 44: 2, 1968, pp. 228–39; J. I. Coffey, ‘Strate-
gic arms limitations’, International Affairs, 47: 4, 1971, pp. 692–707; J. I. Coffey, ‘Détente, arms control and
European security’, International Affairs 52: 1, 1976, pp. 39–52; Richard Burt, ‘Technology and east-west arms
control’, International Affairs 53: 1, 1977, pp. 51–72; Steven C. Haas, ‘Reassessing lessons from the ABM treaty’,
International Affairs 64: 2, 1988, pp. 233–40; J. I. Coffey, ‘Soviet ABM policy: the implications for the West’,
International Affairs 45: 2, 1969, pp. 205–22.
10
Harold Stassen, ‘Peace and disarmament’, International Affairs 32: 3, 1956, pp. 283–86.
11
James A. Thomson, ‘The LRTNF decision: evolution of US theatre nuclear policy, 1975-9’, International Affairs
60: 4, 1984, pp. 601–14; Jane M. O. Sharp, ‘After Reykjavik: arms control and the allies’, International Affairs
63: 2, 1987, pp. 239–57.
12
Jonathan Alford, ‘The place of British and French nuclear weapons in arms control’, International Affairs 59: 4,
1983, pp. 569–74; Richard Gott, ‘The evolution of the independent British deterrent’, International Affairs 39:
2, 1963, pp. 238–52; Alfred Goldberg, ‘The atomic origins of the British nuclear deterrent’, International Affairs
40: 3, 1964, pp. 409–29; Wolf Mendl, ‘The background of French nuclear policy’, International Affairs 41: 1,
1965, pp. 22–36; Robert J. Lieber, ‘The French nuclear force: a strategic and political evaluation’, International
Affairs 42: 3, 1966, pp. 421–31.
13
Michael Quinlan, ‘Nuclear weapons and the abolition of war‘, International Affairs 67: 2, 1991, pp. 293–301.
14
J. P. Perry Robinson, ‘Disarmament and other policy options for western policy-making on chemical warfare’,
International Affairs 63: 1, Jan. 1987, pp. 65–80. This partly merged out of western thinking on non-nuclear
warfare in Europe and the relationship of chemical weapons and nuclear use.
15
Vital, ‘Double-talk or double-think?’, pp. 419–33.
16
Brownlie, ‘Nuclear proliferation: some problems of control’, pp. 600–608.
17
Michael Edwardes, ‘India, Pakistan and nuclear weapons’, International Affairs 43: 4, 1967, pp. 655–63.
18
H. Jon Rosenbaum and Glenn M. Cooper, ‘Brazil and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, International
Affairs 46: 1, 1970, pp. 74–90.
4
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
test in 1974, observed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty needed greater positive
assurances.19
Post-Cold War
With the end of the Cold War, unilateralist articulations of disarmament continued
to be a regular element of articles in International Affairs, with MccGwire now
seeking to make the case for the West to abandon its nuclear capability.20 The
journal’s UK-focus remained noticeable, with MccGwire considering the rise
and fall of the NPT regime as an opportunity for Britain to abandon nuclear
weapons.21 In more recent times, William Walker and Nick Ritchie continued
to advocate for the UK to renounce its nuclear capability.22 Nick Ritchie subse-
quently argued that nuclear weapons were increasingly being delegitimized and
devalued,23 while Paul Rogers sought to show that nuclear weapons were having
a detrimental effect on the UK’s conventional forces, through a binary analysis
of nuclear replacement and the future of the aircraft carrier programme.24 The
rationale for selecting the carrier programme rather than another conventional
programme was unclear, however, there was a logic for questioning the conven-
tional versus nuclear balance. Michael Quinlan’s article on ‘bang for the buck’ was
far more persuasive and raised an interesting question for multilateralists, about
the relative merits of nuclear weapons compared to other capabilities in the post-
Cold War world.25
Arms control, despite the various agreements made in the immediate aftermath
of the Cold War, featured less in the journal and non-proliferation became the
dominant element, with continuous questioning of the future of the NPT.26 The
third article in this collection, by Rebecca Johnson, vice chair of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament, is typical of this literature. On the occasion of the 40th
anniversary of the Non-Proliferation Treaty coming into force, she looked at the
19
Hedley Bull, ‘Rethinking non-proliferation’, International Affairs 51: 2, 1975, pp. 175–89; Philip Gummett,
‘From NPT to INFCE: developments in thinking about nuclear non-proliferation’, International Affairs 57: 4,
1981, pp. 549–67.
20
Michael MccGwire, ‘Is there a future for nuclear weapons?’, International Affairs 70: 2, 1994, pp. 211–28.
21
Michael MccGwire, ‘The rise and fall of the NPT: an opportunity for Britain’, International Affairs 81: 1 2005,
pp. 115–40.
22
Nick Ritchie, ‘Deterrence dogma? Challenging the relevance of British nuclear weapons’, International Affairs
85: 1, 2009, pp. 81–98; William Walker, ‘The UK, threshold status and responsible nuclear sovereignty’, Inter-
national Affairs 86: 2, 2010, pp. 447–64; Nick Ritchie, ‘Relinquishing nuclear weapons: identities, networks
and the British bomb’, International Affairs 86: 2, 2010, pp. 465–87.
23
Nick Ritchie, ‘Waiting for Kant: devaluing and delegitimizing nuclear weapons’, International Affairs 90: 3,
2014, pp. 601–23; John Borrie, ‘Humanitarian reframing of nuclear weapons and the logic of a ban’, Interna-
tional Affairs 90: 3, 2014, pp. 625–46.
24
Paul Rogers, ‘Big boats and bigger skimmers: determining Britain’s role in the Long War’, International Affairs
82: 4, 2006, pp. 651–65.
25
Michael Quinlan, ‘The future of United Kingdom nuclear weapons: shaping the debate’, International Affairs
82: 4, 2006, pp. 627–37.
26
Joseph F. Pilat, ‘The end of the NPT regime?’, International Affairs 83: 3, 2007, pp. 469–82; Michael Ruhle,
‘Enlightenment in the second nuclear age’, International Affairs 83: 3, 2007, pp. 511–22; Henry D. Sokoloski,
‘Towards am NPT-restrained world that makes economic sense’, International Affairs 83: 3, 2007, pp. 531–48;
John Simpson, ‘Nuclear non-proliferation in the post-Cold War era’, International Affairs 70: 1, 1994, pp. 17–39.
5
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
future of the NPT,27 while in 2007 the journal devoted a special issue to the nuclear
order.28 Other weapons of mass destruction received less attention, although
articles addressed most notably chemical weapons and the Chemical Weapons
Convention.29 Michelle Bentley’s argument on strategic taboos was subsequently
countered by James Wirtz’s article, which looked at Syria and questioned whether
we could assume a nuclear taboo in the future.30
What is remarkable in all this literature is the dominance of global North
scholars, politicians and campaigners throughout this narrative, although an
important strand of articles considered proliferation of nuclear weapons outside
Europe and the US.31 The fourth article in the collection comes from Sizwe
Mpofu-Walsh, a South African scholar, who recently contributed to a special issue
of the journal on ‘Race and imperialism in International Relations’.32 Mpofu-
Walsh’s article links back to the discussion of disarmament at the start of this
section, with his examination of the origins of the African nuclear weapons-free
zone. He highlights both an African conformity to the existing colonial-based
order and also the continent’s opposition to nuclear weapons.
Theme 2: Ethics, international law and the management of conflict
The second theme links directly to the first. The horror of the First World War
and the wars and conflicts that followed have led to ongoing debate in the journal
around ethical, legal and management questions.
While some looked to eliminate war completely, others have debated when
force can and should be used; this has been a consistent theme of the last century.
These discussions linked to traditional ideas of just war33 and frequently revolved
27
Rebecca Johnson, ‘Rethinking the NPT’s role in security: 2010 and beyond’, International Affairs 86: 2, 2010,
pp. 429–45.
28
William Walker, ‘Nuclear enlightenment and counter-enlightenment’, International Affairs 83: 3, 2007, pp.
431–53; David S. Yost, ‘Introduction: thinking about ‘enlightenment’ and ‘counter-enlightenment’ in nuclear
policies’, International Affairs 83: 3, 2007, pp. 427–30; Farzana Shaikh, ‘Pakistan’s nuclear bomb: beyond the
non-proliferation regime’, International Affairs 78: 1, 2002, pp. 29–48.
29
J. P. Perry Robinson, ‘Implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention’, International Affairs 72: 1, 1996, pp.
73–89; J. P. Perry Robinson, ‘Difficulties facing the Chemical Weapons Convention’, International Affairs 84:
2, 2008, pp. 223–39; Catherine Jefferson, ‘Origins of the norm against chemical weapons’, International Affairs
90: 3, 2014, pp. 647–61; Michelle Bentley, ‘Strategic taboos: chemical weapons and US foreign policy’, Inter-
national Affairs 90: 5, 2014, pp. 1033–48.
30
James J. Wirtz, ‘Nuclear disarmament and the end of the chemical weapons ‘system of restraint’,’ International
Affairs 95: 4, 2019, pp. 785–800.
31
William Walker, ‘International nuclear relations after the Indian and Pakistani test explosions’, International
Affairs 74: 3, 1998, pp. 505–28; Stuart Croft, ‘South Asia’s arms control process: cricket diplomacy and the
composite dialogue’, International Affairs 81: 5, 2005, pp. 1039–60; Andrew O’Neil, ‘Extended nuclear deter-
rence in East Asia: redundant or resurgent?’, International Affairs 87: 6, 2011, pp. 1439–57; Ramesh Thakur,
‘The inconsequential gains and lasting insecurities of India’s nuclear weaponization’, International Affairs 90: 5,
2014, pp. 1101–24; Pervez Hoodbhoy and Zia Mian, ‘Nuclear fears, hopes and realities in Pakistan’, International
Affairs 90: 5, pp. 1125–42; Mahesh Shankar and T. V. Paul, ‘Nuclear doctrines and stable strategic relation-
ships: the case of south Asia’, International Affairs 92: 1, 2016, pp. 1–20; Wyn Bowen and Matthew Moran,
‘Living with nuclear hedging: the implications of Iran’s nuclear strategy’, International Affairs 91: 4, 2015,
pp. 687–707; David Hastings Dunn, ‘‘‘Real men want to go to Tehran”: Bush, pre-emption and the Iranian
nuclear challenge’, International Affairs 83: 1, 2007, pp. 19–38.
32
Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, ‘Obedient rebellion: conceiving the African nuclear weapons-free zone’, International
Affairs 98: 1, 2022, pp. 145–63.
33
Nicholas Rengger, ‘On the just war tradition in the twenty-first century’, International Affairs 78: 2, 2002, pp.
6
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
around the appropriate legal body to oversee such actions. In the aftermath of the
First World War, many looked to the League of Nations as the primary mecha-
nism for preventing war. One such contribution, made in 1933 by Captain Basil
Liddell Hart, one of the United Kingdom’s leading military thinkers, is the fifth
article in the collection. Liddell Hart advocated the creation of an international
force for the League of Nations to utilize as appropriate.34
The failure of the League of Nations, the experience of the Second World
War and the advent of nuclear weapons led the resurgence of a state-centric view
of military power. A significant early example of this is provided by Sir Michael
Howard,35 the first Professor of War Studies at King’s College London. In the
immediate aftermath of the Cold War and the 1991 Gulf War, one of his succes-
sors at King’s and a former Chatham House researcher, Sir Lawrence Freedman,
reflected on the challenges of using military force for politicians. His article in
some ways foretold what would happen in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a
decade later.36 In a subsequent contribution, Freedman reminded readers of the
journal of the centrality of politics in military power.37 Following the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, Nick Rengger looked at the temptation of preventative
war.38 In an earlier piece, John Erickson warned readers of the predominance of
western thinking on the role of military power in the journal by turning to the
Soviet Union.39
In the post-Cold War period, a new literature has developed on the idea of
humanitarian war. For example, in 1993 Sir Adam Roberts wrote on ‘Humani-
tarian war: military intervention and human rights’, while others provided a
variety of case-studies.40 Some contributions have argued that the international
community has, at times, a responsibility to intervene, thus linking back to Liddell
Hart’s earlier piece. The emergence of the doctrine of the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P) in the 2000s spawned a whole new set of articles.41 Alex Bellamy’s
353–63; Cecile Fabre, ‘Cosmopolitanism, just war theory and legitimate authority’, International Affairs 84: 5,
2008, pp. 963–76; Steven Haines, ‘The influence of Operation Allied Force in the development of the jus ad
bellum’, International Affairs 85: 3, 2009, pp. 477–90; David Fisher and Nigel Biggar, ‘Was Iraq an unjust war?
A debate on the Iraq war and reflections on Libya’, International Affairs 87: 3, 2011, pp. 687–707; Scott Fitzsim-
mons, ‘Just war theory and private security companies’, International Affairs 91: 5, 2015, pp. 1069–84; Ian Clark,
‘Taking ‘justness’ seriously in just war: who are the ‘miserable comforters’ now?’, International Affairs 93: 2,
2017, pp. 327–41.
34
B. H. Liddell Hart, ‘An international force’, International Affairs 12: 2, 1933, pp. 205–23.
35
Michael Howard, ‘Military power and international order’, International Affairs 40: 3, 1964, pp 397–408.
36
Lawrence Freedman, ‘Escalators and quagmires: expectations and the use of force’, International Affairs 67: 1,
1991, pp. 15–31.
37
Lawrence Freedman, ‘Military power and political influence’, International Affairs 74: 4, 1998, pp.762–79.
38
Nicholas Rengger, ‘The greatest treason? On the subtle temptations of preventative war’, International Affairs
84: 5, 2008, pp. 949–641.
39
John Erickson, ‘The ‘military factor’ in Soviet policy’, International Affairs 39: 2, 1963, pp. 214–26.
40
Adam Roberts, ‘Humanitarian war: military intervention and human rights’, International Affairs 69: 1, 1993,
pp. 429–49; Nicholas J. Wheeler and Tim Dunne, ‘East Timor and the new humanitarian interventionism’,
International Affairs 77: 4, 2001, pp. 805–27; Fatima Ayub and Sari Kouvo, ‘Righting the course? Humanitarian
intervention, the war on terror and the future of Afghanistan’, International Affairs 84: 4, 2008, pp. 641–57; Page
Wilson, ‘The myth of international humanitarian law’, International Affairs 93: 3, 2017, pp. 563–79.
41
Alex J. Bellamy, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the problem of military intervention’, International Affairs
84: 4, 2008, pp. 515–39; Kirsten Ainley, ‘The Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court:
counteracting the crisis’, International Affairs 91: 1, 2015, pp. 37–54.
7
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
2008 article tackles the challenge of military intervention and is article six on our
list. Related to this, Anthony Forster highlighted how the law was increasingly
becoming a part of the conduct of operations, leading to what he termed the
‘juridification of the armed forces’.42
The R2P debate is part of the wider literature on the relationship between war
and international law. In an early contribution to the journal, Philip Kerr wrote
on the ‘outlawry of war’, a theme that Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro returned
to over 90 years later in the January 2019 special edition.43 Their article is number
seven in the collection. The journal’s long engagement with war and international
law included a number of notable lawyers. For example, Lord Justice Lawrence
wrote about his experience as president of all the judges at the Nuremberg War
trials,44 and F. Honig looked at what lessons could be drawn for the future from
previous war crimes trials.45 In more recent volumes, the journal has published a
number of articles on various aspects of the International Criminal Court, set up
to preside over war crimes trials.46
Post-hostility justice, and the more general challenge of dealing with the after-
effects of wars and conflicts, have also been a consistent theme.47 Furthermore,
over the last decade, the issue of sexual violence and exploitation have received due
attention.48 As an example, Jasmine-Kim Westendorf and Louise Searle looked at
sexual exploitation and abuse in peace operations, highlighting that the perpetra-
tors were not just the combatants.49 This is number eight on our list.
Theme 3: Military strategy, organization and planning
A third consistent theme highlighted by this archive collection is how states and
others think about, organize themselves for and plan for war and conflict. In the
journal’s first decade, this topic received relatively little attention; and it would
appear that Chatham House felt that that it was more within the purview of the
Royal United Services Institute, given its narrower military focus. However, this
changed after the mid-1930s. In 1936, the journal published an article on the need
42
Anthony Forster, ‘British judicial engagement and the juridification of the armed forces’, International Affairs
88: 2, 2012, pp. 283–300.
43
Philip Kerr, ‘The outlawry of war’, International Affairs 7: 6, 1928, pp. 361–88; Oona A. Hathaway and Scott
J. Shapiro, ‘International law and its transformation through the outlawry of war’, International Affairs 95: 1,
2019, pp. 45–62.
44
Lord Justice Lawrence, ‘The Nuremberg trial’, International Affairs 23: 2, pp. 151–59.
45
F. Honig, ‘War crimes trials: lessons for the future’, International Affairs 26: 4, 1950, pp. 522–32.
46
Marc Weller, ‘Undoing the global constitution: UN Security Council action on the International Criminal
Court’, International Affairs 78: 4, 2002, pp. 693–712; Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer, ‘The African Union and
the International Criminal Court: counteracting the crisis’, International Affairs 92: 6, 2016, pp. 1319–42.
47
Gillian Wigglesworth, ‘The end of impunity: lessons from Sierra Leone’, International Affairs 84: 4, 2008, pp.
809–27; Chandra Lekha Sriram, ‘International law, International Relations theory and post-atrocity justice:
towards a genuine dialogue’, International Affairs 82: 3, 2006, pp. 467–78.
48
Janine Natalya Clark, ‘Beyond a ‘survivor-centred’ approach to conflict related sexual violence?’, International
Affairs 97: 4, 2021, pp. 1067–84; Camile Oliveira and Erin Baines, ‘Children “born of war”: a role for fathers?’,
International Affairs 96: 2, 2020, pp. 439–56; Paula Drumond, ‘What about men? Towards a critical interroga-
tion of sexual violence against men in global politics’, International Affairs 95: 6, 2019, pp. 1271–88.
49
Jasmine-Kim Westendorf and Louise Searle, ‘Sexual exploitation and abuse in peace operations: trends, policy
responses and future directions’, International Affairs 93: 2, 2017, pp. 365–88.
8
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
for British rearmament50 and several pieces on the relative balance of military
forces.51 These formed part of a wider debate within Chatham House on how
to tackle the growth of fascism in Europe and the increasing challenge posed by
Japan in the Pacific. Arnold Toynbee’s contribution to the debate, published after
the Munich Agreement, was typical of the divided views within the House and
among its membership.52
In the interwar period, one article stands out given the context in which it was
written. Many generals, admirals and air chief marshals have written their memoirs
about their experience of war. Often, they have sought to use them as a vehicle to
ensure that history sees them in a more positive light. This trend has not changed
and in recent times we have even seen them turn to fiction as a way to promote
their views.53 It is also often said that generals plan for the last war and hence fail
to prepare their armies for the next war. Bringing these observations together is
the article in the July 1939 issue by General Maxime Weygand, a retired former
Chief of Staff of the French Army, on ‘How France is defended’ (article nine). 54
Ten months later Weygand was recalled from Syria, where he had been appointed
to the position of Commander-in-Chief for the Orient theatre of Operations, to
replace General Gamelin as Supreme Leader tasked with countering the German
breakthrough at Sedan. Unfortunately he failed and the rest, as they say, is history.
The combined French and British forces were ill-prepared to combat the new
blitzkrieg tactics adopted by the German army. France surrendered and Britain
was left to lead the free world in opposition to Hitler.
In the postwar period nuclear strategy became a principal concern of military
strategists, which we will turn to in the next section. NATO and the defence of
western Europe became a distinct strand in the Cold War literature. Interestingly,
questions about the future of NATO started to emerge even in the 1980s.55 The
UK’s contribution to NATO was periodically reviewed and these contributions
tended to focus on the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR).56 However, it was
not until the 1980s that conventional defence was addressed in any depth. Hew
Strachan’s 1985 article on the conventional defence of Europe provided the first
inkling of the major changes in NATO thinking. These were brought about by
the United States via its AirLand Battle doctrine (particularly the 1982 and 1985
versions), NATO’s subsequent adoption of ‘Follow-on Forces Attack’ and what
became known in the UK as the Bagnall reforms, which sought to inculcate the
50
Lord Lloyd, ‘The need for re-armament of Great Britain: its justification and scope’, International Affairs 15: 1,
1936, pp. 57–79.
51
Hector C. Bywater, ‘The changing balance of forces in the Mediterranean’, International Affairs 16: 3, 1937, pp.
361–87; Air Commodore L. E. O. Charlton, ‘Air power and the principle of parity’, International Affairs 17: 4,
1938, pp. 493–511.
52
Arnold J. Toynbee, ‘After Munich: the world outlook’, International Affairs 18: 1, 1939, pp. 1–28.
53
See e.g. War with Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff (London: Hachette, 2016).
54
General Maxime Weygand, ‘How France is defended’, International Affairs 18: 4, 1939, pp. 399–477.
55
Stanley Kober, ‘Can NATO survive?’, International Affairs 59: 3, 1983, pp. 339–49; Jolyon Howorth, ‘Consensus
of silence: the French Socialist Party and defence policy under Francois Mitterand’, International Affairs 60: 4,
1980, pp. 579–600.
56
John Garnett, ‘NATO and BAOR’, International Affairs 46: 4, 1970, pp. 670–81; Lawrence Freedman, ‘Britain’s
contribution to NATO’, International Affairs 54: 1, 1978, pp. 30–47.
9
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
British Army with the ideas of mission command, the manoeuverist approach
and the operational level.57 This led on to John Baylis’s 1987 article arguing that
NATO should adopt a new Strategic Concept replacing Flexible Response.58
However, it was only in the post-Cold War world and particularly after the
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, that the areas of military organization and
change really became significant in the journal. The first of a series of articles
by Paul Cornish and Andrew Dorman, ‘Blair’s wars and Brown’s budgets: from
Strategic Defence Review to strategic decay in less than a decade’ first raised the
question of whether the British political and military establishments had lost the
ability to think strategically.59 Continuing on this theme, Hew Strachan reflected
on the relationship between strategy and contingency;60 while focusing on this
civil–military interface, Tim Edmunds examined civil–military relations and the
issue of risk.61 The articles on this topic generally divide into two basic groups.
Some tried to answer how militaries should be organized in the future—Antoine
Bousquet’s contribution, article ten on our list, continues to provide valuable
insights in this regard.62 The other theme revolved around how militaries should
change (this was not a completely new topic, see for example, the article by
Weygand ).63 The next entry, Theo Farrell’s article on the British military, provides
an excellent example of this.64 Other articles looked at the military covenant65 and
British defence acquisition and defence sales.66
The last article in this section of the collection is by Rosaleen Duffy. It is impor-
tant for two reasons. First, Duffy highlights how armed forces are increasingly
used in non-traditional warfare tasks. In her provocatively titled article ‘Waging a
war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation’, she studies their use
in conservation.67 For western militaries, participating in training initiatives with
57
Hew Strachan, ‘Conventional defence in Europe’, International Affairs 61: 1, 1985, pp. 24–43.
58
John Baylis, ‘NATO strategy: the case for a new strategic concept’, International Affairs 64: 1, 1987, pp. 43–59.
59
Paul Cornish and Andrew Dorman, ‘Blair’s wars and Brown’s budgets: from Strategic Defence Review to
strategic decay in less than a decade’, International Affairs 85: 2, 2009, pp. 247–61.
60
Hew Strachan, ‘Strategy and contingency’, International Affairs 87: 6, 2011, pp. 1281–96.
61
Timothy Edmunds, ‘British civil-military relations and the problem of risk’, International Affairs 88: 2, 2012,
pp. 265–82.
62
Antoine Bousquet, ‘Chaoplexic warfare or the future of military organization’, International Affairs 84: 5, 2008,
pp. 915–29.
63
Theo Farrell, ‘The dynamics of British military transformation’, International Affairs 84: 4, 2008, pp. 777–807;
Robert T. Foley, Stuart Griffin and Helen McCartney, ‘‘Transformation in contact’: learning the lessons of
modern war’, International Affairs 87: 2, 2011, pp. 253–270; Stuart Griffin, ‘Iraq, Afghanistan and the future of
British military doctrine: from counterinsurgency to stabilization’, International Affairs 87: 2, 2011, pp. 317–35;
Anthony King, ‘Military command in the last decade’, International Affairs 87: 2, 2011, pp. 377–96; Robert T.
Foley, ‘Dumb donkeys or cunning foxes? Learning in the British and German armies during the Great War’,
International Affairs 90: 2, 2014, pp. 279–98.
64
Farrell, ‘The dynamics of British military transformation’, pp. 777–807.
65
Anthony Forster, ‘Breaking the covenant: governance of the British army in the twenty-first century’, Inter-
national Affairs 82: 6, 2006, pp. 1043–57.
66
Martin Edmonds, ‘International collaboration in weapons procurement: the implications of the Anglo-French
case’, International Affairs 43: 2, 1967, pp. 252–64; Neville Brown, ‘British arms and the switch towards Europe’,
International Affairs 43: 3, 1967, pp. 468–82; Lawrence Freedman, ‘IV: Britain and the arms trade’, International
Affairs 54: 1, 1978, pp. 377–92; Frederick S. Pearson, ‘The question of control in British defence sales policy’,
International Affairs 59: 2, 1983, pp. 211–38.
67
Rosaleen Duffy, ‘Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation’, International Affairs
90: 4, 2014, pp. 424–70.
10
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
park rangers and others has proven a useful way of giving their forces something
to do while providing training. This article is also significant as it is one of the
few in this section written by a woman, reflecting the ongoing dominance of male
voices in the literature on military strategy, organization and planning.
Theme 4: Nuclear strategy
As mentioned above, the advent of nuclear weapons led to the development
of a sub-theme of strategy that dominated much of the Cold War debate. Like
the previous theme, debates over nuclear strategy in general, and in International
Affairs, were dominated by men. The journal will be publishing a special section
on ‘Feminist interpretations of global nuclear politics’ later this year.
The journal became focused on the nuclear issue with the advent of the
hydrogen bomb. A good example is article 13 in the collection, written by
Anthony Buzzard, John Slessor and Richard Lowenthal. The former had been
UK Director of Naval Intelligence between 1951 and 1954 and a founding member
of both the Institute of Strategic Studies (later IISS), and the Council of Christian
Approaches to Defence and Disarmament. Sir John Slessor’s last post in the Royal
Air Force was as Chief of the Air Staff from 1950 to 1952 and Richard Lowenthal
was a reporter for Reuters and the Observer before becoming Professor Emeritus
at the Free University. In their paper they considered the merits and weaknesses
of the concepts of Massive Retaliation, a policy first advocated by US Secretary
of State John Foster Dulles in 1954, and Graduated Deterrence, a form of which
would become NATO’s policy, known as Flexible Response. This debate remains
pertinent within the context of NATO’s Article V guarantee and the ongoing
Russian challenge.68 Other articles in the 1950s included contributions from two
Nobel Prize winners. Professor Sir George Thomson, witing in 1950, argued that
the hydrogen bomb was a fundamentally new weapon and thus required new
policies.69 Apart from being a Nobel Laureate, Thomson had also chaired the
MAUD Committee which concluded that an atomic weapon was possible and
led to the UK starting the world’s first atomic bomb programme. Professor P. M.
S. Blackett, writing towards the end of the decade, discussed the work of Henry
Kissinger, George Kennan and Stephen King-Hall and the wider implications of
nuclear weapons for defence. Blackett had served on the Aeronautical Research
Committee chaired by Sir Henry Tizard that pressed for the early installation of
radar for air defence. He also served on the MAUD Committee but disagreed with
its conclusion that the UK could develop an atomic weapon by 1943.70
The nuclear issue ebbed and flowed, both in the journal and the outside
world. Much of the focus in the late 1960s and first half of the 1970s shifted to
the changing nuclear balance and the impact of new technologies, particularly
68
Anthony Buzzard and John Slessor, ‘The H-bomb: Massive Retaliation or graduated deterrence’, International
Affairs 32: 2, 1956, pp.148–65.
69
George Thomson, ‘Hydrogen bomb: the need for a policy’, International Affairs 26: 4, 1950, pp. 463–69.
70
P. M. S. Blackett, ‘Nuclear weapons and defence: comments on Kissinger, Kennan and King-Hall’, Interna-
tional Affairs 34: 4, 1958, pp. 421–34.
11
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs).71 In 1975, eight
years after NATO had formally moved from its policy of Massive Retaliation
to Flexible Response, Michael Brenner picked up some of the issues raised by
Buzzard, Slessor and Lowenthal, concluding that NATO had to answer questions
about its tactical nuclear weapons policy, in an article that foretold what would
become the long-range tactical nuclear force (LRTNF) debate.72
By the late 1970s, as détente gave way to a renewed Cold War, articles began
exploring the balance in military forces between East and West. NATO members
agreed to the Long Term Defence Programme, which included renewal of inter-
mediate range nuclear forces with the deployment of Pershing II intermediate-
range ballistic missiles and ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe. James
Thomson brought this discussion up to date in his 1984 article, which examined
US thinking on the topic.73 The earlier election of Ronald Reagan as US presi-
dent, with his stark rhetoric and defence build-up, including the Strategic Defense
Initiative, led many to fear that nuclear war was becoming increasing likely. In
response, Graham Allison, Albert Carnesale and Joseph Nye wrote a piece that
sought to shift the debate and policy,74 while Arnold Kanter and Trevor Taylor
wrote responses to Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative.75
Inevitably, given Chatham House’s location, a significant number of contribu-
tions focused on the United Kingdom and its nuclear capabilities.76 Broadening
the debate, Andre Beaufre, a French general and noted writer on strategy and
deterrence theory, published a piece in the journal entitled ‘The sharing of nuclear
responsibilities: a problem in need of solution’, which formed part of his work
advocating the creation of France’s own nuclear force (article 14 in the collection).77
Throughout the second half of the Cold War, a series of articles appeared on both
British and French nuclear forces.78 The debate on the British nuclear deterrent
would continue into the post-Cold War era, including in a special edition of the
journal in July 2006, that was timed to coincide with the debate to replace the
United Kingdom’s existing Trident force.79
71
Michael Brenner, ‘Tactical nuclear strategy and European defence: a critical reappraisal’, International Affairs
51: 1, 1975, pp. 23–42.
72
Brenner, ‘Tactical nuclear strategy and European defence’, pp. 23–42.
73
Thomson, ‘The LRTNF decision’, pp. 601–14.
74
Graham T. Allison, Albert Carnesale and Joseph S. Nye, Jr, ‘Hawks, doves and owls: a new perspective on
avoiding nuclear war’, International Affairs 61: 4, 1985, pp. 581–89.
75
Arnold Kanter, ‘Thinking about the strategic defence initiative: an alliance perspective’, International Affairs 61:
3, 1985, pp. 449–64; Trevor Taylor, ‘Britain’s response to the Strategic Defence Initiative’, International Affairs
62: 2, 1986, pp. 219–30; John Fenske, ‘France and the Strategic Defence Initiative: speeding up or putting
on the brakes?’, International Affairs 62: 2, 1986, pp. 231–46; Christoph Bluth, ‘SDI: the challenge to West
Germany’, International Affairs 62: 2, 1986, pp. 247–64.
76
John Strachey, ‘Is our deterrent vulnerable? A discussion of western defence in the 1960s’, International Affairs
37: 1, 1961, pp. 1–8; Richard Gott, The evolution of the independent British deterrent’, pp. 238–52.
77
Andre Beaufre, ‘The sharing of nuclear responsibilities: a problem in need of solution’, International Affairs 41:
3, 1965, pp. 411–419.
78
Christopher Irwin, ‘Nuclear aspects of western defence integration’, International Affairs 47: 4, 1971, pp.
679–91; David S. Yost, ‘New approaches to deterrence in Britain, France and the United States’, International
Affairs 81: 1, 2005, pp. 83–114.
79
Quinlan, ‘The future of United Kingdom nuclear weapons’, pp. 627–37.
12
International Affairs online, April 2022100 years of war and conflict
With the end of the Cold War, the focus on nuclear strategy in the West has
declined and attention turned to other elements of security. But this has not been
the case for all. Mahesh Shankar and T. V. Paul’s January 2016 article on nuclear
stability and doctrines in South Asia reminds us that there are many strands to
nuclear strategy.80 This is article 15 on the list. Vladimir Putin’s decision that Russia
would invade Ukraine in February 2022, and his subsequent heightening of the
alert status of Russian nuclear forces, might prompt a return to thinking about
nuclear strategy in Europe. Putin’s actions and the associated debate about whether
the Russians might use what have been termed ‘battlefield’ and/or ‘tactical nuclear
weapons’ remind us that much of our recent thinking on nuclear weapons has been
based on the assumption of a ‘nuclear taboo’, that no state would use such weap-
ons because of the devastation associated with them. However, as James Wirtz’s
2019 article in a special issue on ‘Re-visioning war and the state in the twenty-first
century’ reminded readers, the taboo is based on a weak foundation and that events
in Syria had already seen the breaking of another taboo, around the use of chemical
weapons.81 Wirtz’s article concludes this section of the archive collection.
Theme 5: Individual wars and crises
The fifth theme in the archive collection looks to the various wars and crises
covered by the journal over the last century. Perhaps surprising, given when both
Chatham House and the journal were founded, the causes of, and the outbreak of,
the First World War were not covered in the journal until January 1939.82 Instead,
as indicated in the disarmament section, contributors focused on preventing a
repeat of such wars through international law, a campaign for disarmament and
arms control. The first article to start forewarning of another European war came
from an American journalist, H. R. Knickerbocker in 1934.83 Arnold Toynbee
speculated whether there could be peaceful change rather than war.84 The First
World War only received its due attention in a special issue published in 2014,
marking the centenary of its outbreak.85
Instead, various ongoing crises dominated the pages of the journal in the 1930s.
These ranged from Basil Liddell Hart’s examination of an International Force, to
articles on crises in the Pacific, for example by the Marquis of Lothian who had
been sent out to try resolve what we now refer to as the Manchurian Crisis, to
the 1938 Munich Crisis.86
80
Shankar and Paul, ‘Nuclear doctrines and stable strategic relationships’, pp. 1–20.
81
Wirtz, ‘Nuclear disarmament and the end of the chemical weapons “system of restraint”’, pp. 785–800.
82
G. P. Gooch, ‘European diplomacy before the war in the light of the archives’, International Affairs 18: 1, 1939,
pp. 77–102; Isabella M. Massey, ‘The diplomatic origins of the First World War’, International Affairs 25: 2,
1949, pp. 182–91.
83
H. R. Knickerbocker, ‘The danger of war in Europe’, International Affairs 13: 4, 1934, pp. 463–89; H. R. Knick-
erbocker, The truth about Hitlerism (Melbourne: Verona Press, 1933); H. R. Knickerbocker, the boiling point: will
war come in Europe? (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1934).
84
Arnold J. Toynbee, ‘Peaceful change or war? The next stage in the international crisis’, International Affairs 15:
1, 1936, pp. 26–56.
85
See International Affairs 90: 2, 2014, pp. 249–501.
86
Liddell Hart, ‘An international force’, pp. 205–23; Marquis of Lothian, ‘The crisis in the Pacific’, International
13
International Affairs online, April 2022Andrew M. Dorman and Tracey German
After the Second World War, there was a steady trickle of articles on individual
conflicts, addressing, in particular, the impact of decolonization and the various
civil wars that followed. For example, Bernard Fall wrote on the Second
Indochina War in the midst of the US expansion of its role in Vietnam.87 The
Vietnam War proved to be a popular theme88 as did subsequent conflicts in the
region.89 Latin America also received some interest.90 In 1969, Vince Cable wrote
about the ‘Football War’ between El Salvador and Honduras, reminding readers
that the causes of war are not always predictable. 91 Margery Perham’s article
on the Nigerian civil war is a representative example of this era and is the 17th
entry on the list.92 It was only after the 1973 Yom Kippur War that conflicts in
other regions began to receive greater attention. Attention shifted to the Iran–
Iraq conflict, which generated a steady flow of articles throughout the 1980s.93
The conflict which generated the most interest within these pages was the 1982
Falklands conflict. Interestingly, more than a decade before the conflict broke out,
J. C. J. Metford, a professor of Spanish at the University of Bristol, wrote on the
dispute.94 In the immediate aftermath of the 1982 conflict, the journal published a
series of articles, including a cluster of papers in the summer 1983 edition.
The post-Cold War era has seen an upturn in articles addressing specific conflicts,
including the 1990–91 Gulf War;95 the conflict in the Balkans96 following the
Affairs 14: 2, 1935, pp. 155–75; Edward C. Carter, ‘Before the war in China’, International Affairs 16: 6, 1937,
pp. 835–51; John M. Melley, ‘Ethiopia and the war from the Ethiopian point of view’, International Affairs 15:
1, 1936, pp. 103–21; E. A. Ch.-Walden, ‘The Sino-Japanese war and the open door’, International Affairs 17: 5,
1938, pp. 629–54; Chang Peng-Chun, ‘The “second phase” of China’s struggle’, International Affairs 18: 2, 1939,
pp. 211–26; Toynbee, ‘After Munich’, pp. 1–28; Gilbert Fergusson, ‘Munich: the French and British roles’,
International Affairs 44: 4, 1968, pp. 649–65; Donald Cameron Watt, ‘1939 revisited: on theories of the origins
of war’, International Affairs 65: 4, 1989, pp. 685–92.
87
Bernard B. Fall, ‘The second Indochina war’, International Affairs 41: 1, 1965, pp. 59–73.
88
Ton That Thien, ‘Vietnam: a cash of social alienation’, International Affairs 43: 3, 1967, pp. 455–67; Robert
E. Hunter and Philip Windsor, ‘Vietnam and United States policy in Asia’, International Affairs 44: 2, 1968,
pp. 202–13; Milton E. Osborne, ‘Post Vietnam: the end of an era in south-east Asia?’, International Affairs 45:
2, 1969, pp. 223–33; Stanley G. Langland, ‘The Laos factor in a Vietnam equation’, International Affairs 45: 4,
1969, pp. 631–47; Geoffrey Warner, ‘The United States and Vietnam 1945–65 part ii: 1945–54’, International
Affairs 48: 3, 1972, pp. 379–94; Geoffrey Warner, ‘The United States and Vietnam 1945–65 part 1: 1954–65’,
International Affairs 48: 4, 1972, pp. 593–615; Dennis Duncanson, ‘“Symbiotic insurgency” in Vietnam ten
years after’, International Affairs 54: 4, 1978, pp. 589–99; Lawrence Freedman, ‘Vietnam and the disillusioned
strategist’, International Affairs 72: 1, 1996, pp. 133–51.
89
Michael Leifer, ‘The international dimensions of the Cambodian conflict’, International Affairs 51: 4, 1975, pp.
531–43; Pao-Min Chang, ‘Some reflections on the Sino-Vietnamese conflict over Kampuchea’, International
Affairs 59: 3, 1983, pp. 381–89.
90
Walter Little, ‘International conflict in Latin America’, International Affairs 63: 4, 1987, pp. 589–601.
91
Vincent Cable, ‘The “Football War” and the Central American Common Market’, International Affairs 45: 4,
1969, pp. 658–71.
92
Margery Perham, ‘Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War’, International Affairs 46: 2, 1970, pp. 231–46.
93
M. S. El Azhary, ‘The attitudes of the superpowers towards the Gulf War’, International Affairs 58: 4, 1980,
pp. 609–20; Efraim Karsh, ‘Military power and foreign policy goals: the Iran–Iraq war revisited’, International
Affairs 64: 1, 1988, pp. 83–95; Philip Robins, ‘A feeling of disappointment: the British press and the Gulf
conflict’, International Affairs 64: 4, 1988, pp. 585–97.
94
J. C. J. Metford, ‘Falklands or Malvinas?: the background to the dispute‘, International Affairs 44: 3, 1968, pp.
463–81.
95
Fred Halliday, ‘The Gulf War and its aftermath: first reflections’, International Affairs 67: 2, 1991, pp. 223–34;
Michael Brenner, ‘The alliance: a Gulf post-mortem’, International Affairs 67: 4, 1991, pp. 665–78.
96
Mark Webber, ‘The Kosovo war: a recapitulation’ International Affairs 85: 3, 2009, pp. 447–59; Julie A. Mertus,
‘Operation Allied Force: handmaiden of independent Kosovo’, International Affairs 85: 3, 2009, pp. 461–76;
Alistair J. K. Shepherd, ‘”A milestone in the history of the EU”: Kosovo and the EU’s international role’,
14
International Affairs online, April 2022You can also read
