Oh?
On the ban on war, this plays out—as Hathaway and Shapiro document—in the rapid decline of aggression and conquest as motives for war after they are made illegal in 1928 and reinforced in the U.N. Charter. Walt suggests that the change is better explained by the rise of nationalism and the costs of foreign territorial occupation. [emphasis added]
Does it matter if a state changes the reason it invades from simple conquest to one of rescuing ethnic kin or lying that the enemy struck first?
Every Soviet invasion plan to conquer NATO began with a 5-minute defense against a NATO invasion of them, rapidly transitioning to a "counter-attack" to the Rhine River. That was progress?
But if there is a reduction in war, the reduction might not be because of the carnage experienced in World War I (and ignoring World War II and ignoring nukes, I guess)?
Isn't it far more likely that the revulsion and fear of such carnage led to both a reduction of aggressive war and a pact to outlaw it?
And that without the pact the revulsion and fear would have led to the same result?
Yeah, my single class on international law in grad school didn't convince me of the value placed on it by some.
