Podcast appearances and mentions of Tanisha M Fazal

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Wars of Law: Unintended Consequences in the Regulation of Armed Conflict (Cornell UP, 2020), Tanisha M. Fazal assesses the unintended consequences of the proliferation of the laws of war for the commencement, conduct, and conclusion of wars over the course of the past one hundred fifty years. Fazal outlines three main arguments: early laws of war favored belligerents, but more recent additions have constrained them; this shift may be attributable to a growing divide between lawmakers and those who must comply with international humanitarian law; and lawmakers have been consistently inattentive to how rebel groups might receive these laws. By using the laws of war strategically, Fazal suggests, belligerents in both interstate and civil wars relate those laws to their big-picture goals. Why have states stopped issuing formal declarations of war? Why have states stopped concluding formal peace treaties? Why are civil wars especially likely to end in peace treaties today? In addressing such questions, Fazal provides a lively and intriguing account of the implications of the laws of war. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we approach the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Chris, Melanie, and Zack discuss Daniel Byman's article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, “The Good Enough Doctrine: Learning to Live with Terrorism.” Byman surveys the various aspects of the “Global War on Terror” and concludes that, on balance, the United States and others have achieved a level of effort that is both strategically and politically feasible. But can we actually tolerate some level of risk from terrorism in the same way that we tolerate other dangers, from pandemics to severe weather events, or will political leaders always resort to maximalist promises to eliminate terrorism permanently? Was it inevitable that the Global War on Terror would amplify xenophobia and nativism, and what else can we learn from the efforts of the past 20 years? Grievances for critics of the "Blob,” special scorn for Sen. Chris Murphy, and "attapeople" to U.S. military personnel for their enormous sacrifices in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and to those civilians who are now helping to resettle Afghan refugees, as well as those displaced from other disasters.   Daniel Byman's “The Good Enough Doctrine: Learning to Live with Terrorism,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/good-enough-doctrine Richard Stevenson, “Bush Faults Kerry on Terrorism Remarks,” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2004, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/12/politics/campaign/bush-faults-kerry-on-terrorism-remarks.html Christopher Preble, “We Are Terrorized: Why US Counterterrorism Policy Is Failing, and Why It Can't Be Easily Fixed,” War on the Rocks, Jan. 8, 2016, https://warontherocks.com/2016/01/we-are-terrorized-why-u-s-counterterrorism-policy-is-failing-and-why-it-cant-be-easily-fixed/ Bill McCarthy, “Charlie Kirk baselessly claims Biden intentionally let Afghanistan fall to alter US population,” Politifact, Aug. 19, 2021, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/19/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-baselessly-claims-biden-intentionally/ Jordan Mendoza, “Want to donate or volunteer to assist those affected by Hurricane Ida? Here's how to help,” USA Today, Aug. 30, 2021, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/30/hurricane-ida-help-storm-victims-louisiana-mississippi/5648004001/ “How to Help Afghan Refugees and the Relief Effort,” New York Times, Aug. 20, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/20/world/asia/how-to-help-afghanistan-refugees.html “Future Foreign Policy series: Congress and AUMF repeal,” New American Engagement Initiative, Atlantic Council, Sept. 16, 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/future-foreign-policy-congress-and-aumf-repeal/ Tanisha M. Fazal, "The Case for Complacency," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2021-08-24/case-complacency. Joe Biden, "Remarks on the End of the War in Afghanistan," The White House, Aug. 31, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/. Darren Lim, Zack Cooper, and Ashley Feng, “Trust and Diversify: A Geoeconomic Strategy for the Australia-US Alliance,” US Studies Centre, Sept. 2, 2021, https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/trust-and-diversify-a-geoeconomic-strategy-for-the-australia-us-alliance. Susanna Patton and Ashley Townshend, “Kamala Harris's Asia Trip Can't Fix Biden's Troubled Indo-Pacific Strategy,” Foreign Policy, Aug. 24, 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/24/kamala-harris-singapore-vietnam-southeast-asia-trip-biden-indo-pacific-strategy/. Elliot Ackerman, “What the War on Terror Cost America,” Foreign Affairs, Aug. 27, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2021-08-24/winning-ugly. Michael McKinley, “We All Lost Afghanistan,” Foreign Affairs, Aug. 16, 2021, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-16/we-all-lost-afghanistan-taliban.  Jeffrey A. Singer, “Society Will Never Be Free of COVID-19--It's Time to Embrace Harm Reduction,” Cato, Aug. 26, 2021, https://www.cato.org/pandemics-policy/society-will-never-be-free-covid-19-its-time-embrace-harm-reduction.   

Join Trevor Thrall and Emma Ashford as we discuss public engagement in the Trump era with Paul Poast, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.Paul Poast bioPaul Poast, "Twitter Threads,"Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast, "War Is Not Over: What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict." Foreign Affairs, November/December 2019 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Guests:Michael Mousseau is a professor in the School of Politics, Security, and International Affairs at the University of Central Florida.Graham Allison is the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard University, and former Dean of the Harvard Kennedy School.International Security Article:This episode is based on Michael Mousseau, “The End of War: How a Robust Marketplace and Liberal Hegemony Are Leading to Perpetual World Peace,” International Security, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Summer 2019), pp. 160–196.Additional Related Readings:Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast, “War Is Not Over: What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2019.Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?” Atlantic, September 24, 2015.Originally aired on December 20, 2019