Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In Memory of Professor Rob Cryer

In Memory of Professor Rob Cryer It is with great sadness that we have to inform readers and supporters of the Journal that our friend, colleague and co-editor Rob Cryer passed away in January. His generosity, humanity and sense of humour marked him out as special to those who were taught by or worked with him. Tributes from his co-editors I first knew Rob as a lively and engaging LLM student at Nottingham in 1996 where, as well as excelling in his studies, he helped produce the Journal of Armed Conflict Law, which became the Journal of Conflict and Security Law in 2000. Rob then undertook a Ph.D under the supervision of myself and Dino Kritsiotis, and soon after completing that he took up his first post at the University of Manchester in 2001. After a period at Nottingham, he was appointed to a Chair at the University of Birmingham in 2007. Rob authored and co-authored a number of leading books, and a significant number of important chapters and articles, some of which appeared in the Journal. He was always great at thinking of provocative titles for his articles, but the content more than matched, especially in its logic, depth and encyclopaedic knowledge of International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and, more broadly, Public International Law. This is not the place for a review of his massive contribution to scholarship but it is worthwhile remembering with more than a tinge of sadness that he achieved all of this by the age of 46. He had so much more to give and to say he will be sorely missed does not begin to capture the sense of loss I feel. (Nigel D. White) Words cannot begin to reflect the shock I felt on learning the deeply sad news of Rob’s untimely and premature death. It not only meant the loss of a wonderful colleague and fellow-editor of this Journal, but also the loss of a friend. Rob was an optimist by nature, always looking his positive smiling self. This he combined with a great sense of humour. All the many years that he was involved in the Journal he showed himself to be a highly knowledgeable professional: critical but impartial in seeking in each new submission its potential to contribute to the field. Not agreeing with somebody’s point of view would never be a reason to object to it being published. His approach to policy decisions for the Journal was always carefully considered but also properly creative. He always held fast to the view that the Journal had come to have an irreplaceable role in the academic study of conflict and security law. This can be seen from Rob’s draft for an editorial celebrating the 25th year of the journal. What better way to hear it than in his own words, which capture his spirit and sense of humour best. (Eric Myjer) Editorial: the Journal of Conflict & Security Law at 251 1. A brief history We, as the Editors of the Journal, ask your indulgence for reminiscing on the Silver Jubilee of our Journal. It began in the early 1990s, at the end of the notional ‘New World Order’2 as the International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary (1994–95). At that point, we were a small publication that, nonetheless, was supported by great scholars such as Françoise Hampson.3 The Commentary was set up by Nigel White and the late Reverend Professor Hilaire McCoubrey and was published by Nottingham University Press. It was a modest publication (the annual subscription was £11, payable by cheque)4 but, inter alia, contained some of the earliest legal scholarship on the Rwandan Genocide.5 It was the seed of the Journal as we now know it. In 1996, the seed sprang into a sapling. Whilst still being published by Nottingham University Press, it expanded in size, editorial board, authorship and ambition and became the Journal of Armed Conflict Law.6 We were delighted to receive more unsolicited manuscripts. Between the two, we were delighted to have scholars such as William Fenrick,7 Vera-Gowlland Debbas,8 Ray Murphy,9 Rein Müllerson10 and Malcolm Shaw.11 Amongst these, we can count, as well as eminent academics, high-ranking members of the armed forces, those of the ICTY and an ex-foreign minister of Estonia. Their work appeared alongside those at various stages of their careers. This period saw the start of the tradition, which we have kept up, of special issues dedicated to high-level scholarship on matters of contemporary concern.12 At the turn of the Millennium, the seed had become a grown tree, but needed firm soil in which to settle its roots permanently. So Nigel and Eric Myjer, who agreed to join as co-editor adding his expertise in arms control law and collective security law to the Journal’s arsenal,13 decided that for the purposes of distribution and profile to move to Oxford University Press in 2000.14 The Press kindly acceded to that proposal and in order to make clear that the focus of the journal would be broader than that of the law of armed conflict it became the Journal of Conflict & Security Law,15 even if we do rather miss the old acronym (JACL).16 Clarity was the price of the change. It was one worth paying. Although in practice the remit of the Journal has since its beginning been broader than just the Law of Armed Conflict and encompassed a broad spectrum of the interrelation between international law and conflict and security, with the Journal of Conflict & Security Law it would become its foundation. Its focus would be on three interrelated branches (areas) of public international law that apply to conflict and security, namely the law of collective security with its central norms on the use of force and thereby the ius ad bellum, the Law of Armed Conflict (or International Humanitarian Law) and the law of arms control. Hereby, the ius ad bellum is about when use of military force is allowed, with the ius in bello concerned with the way legitimate use of force is applied, and arms control law making clear which weapons are not allowed to be used. They all overlap, and we have always sought to adopt a holistic approach to the area. The first editorial on the aims and objectives of the Journal of Conflict & Security Law explained the broadness of this approach referring to the possible different stages of a conflict from the pre-conflict stage, the stage when there is an actual armed conflict and the post-conflict stage. The Journal of Conflict & Security Law would provide a forum for and stimulate discussion in all of these areas: The Journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues include those of arms control, disarmament and conflict prevention, through the outbreak of armed conflict and discussion of the legality of resort to force (the jus ad bellum), to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law (the jus in bello). Treatment is also given to the stage of conflict resolution where the legal issues are multifarious but may concern territory, compensation and again disarmament. Collective security mechanisms are applicable throughout these different stages, with, for example, a peacekeeping force being a possibility either as a method of preventing or ending the hostilities. (…) it is difficult to gain a full understanding of the legal regime surrounding collective security without knowledge of humanitarian law or the law of arms control. Given that any of these branches of international law may have elements in common, it can also be held that this very interlocking (linking) may lead to the application of similar norms and principles. This is not surprising for depending on the subject matter these respective branches may concern elements like the application of military force, weapons, fighting techniques – including targeting – and military security. We would like to think that we have kept to that mission, whilst being reflexive to new and emerging fields of conflict and security law such as that relating to cyberwarfare.17 This is reflected in our current statement of purpose18 where the journal is aimed at a broad audience namely academics, government officials, military lawyers and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals interested in the areas of arms control law, armed conflict law and collective security law, and the interfaces between them. In the wider journal landscape, the Journal of Conflict & Security Law has a unique position and stands out. Our global perspective can also be seen by our range of contributors, who come from all backgrounds, practitioner, academic, military and others. They are also from all around the world. We have published articles by authors from every continent on Earth with a University.19 We have always welcomed submissions with only one major criterion other than relevance to our remit: quality. We seek to publish the best scholarship on point irrespective of the author or their background. We also would like to think that we have always been diverse, but also know this is something that we can always work on further. We invite constructive suggestions on how we may do so. This also covers the Journal’s approach to theoretical traditions (whether explicit, subtextual or sublimated). We seek open, non-aggressive scholarly debate. We do not encourage polemics, but reasoned discussions. Out broad approach though has been to be ecumenical, we would not refuse to publish a piece because we disagree with it, individually or collectively as editors, as long as it is thoughtful, and an original contribution to debate. We do not have a dogmatic editorial ‘line’ and sometimes (although far less than may be expected) do not agree amongst ourselves on the conclusions contributors reach but do not allow that to interfere with publishing thought-provoking pieces. Indeed, we are more than happy to publish scholarly responses to pieces if there is serious disagreement.20 2. Where we wish to go, with all of the conflict and security community As said above, the Journal began in the 1990s and has therefore seen huge changes in the world, from the Journal’s prequel in the naively vaunted ‘New World Order’ (to which the editorial position was not to tie our flag to that mast, or any flagpole at all). This purported order disintegrated (if it ever existed) in the early years of the Journal, leading to a level of cynicism about the ability of law to relate to issues of conflict. Then, of course, there was 11 September 2001, when the USA for the first time in half a century (after Pearl Harbour) was attacked by means of hijacked planes being flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre (the attacks on US Embassies a few years before did not have the same impact). The Journal responded with the publication of a number of pieces, including by two of the editors, and on cognate matters a little later by the third.21 Even after the assertion on some parts of the commentariat that in the modern era, the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus leads to the conclusion that the law here is neither relevant or no longer applicable, the Journal kept to its strong belief that the law is always relevant, and a rejection of this position is pernicious. This theme was taken up in an American Society of International Law Lieber Prize winning piece by Nicolas Lamp that came out in the Journal on the ideas of ‘new wars’22 and, even before that, Claus Kreβ’s piece on transnational armed conflicts.23 We are more than aware that the nature of armed conflict is mutating, but also that, as Philip Jessup said before the Second World War, ‘of all the clichés which infect patriotic exhortations, the most subtly poisonous is that which calls the war in progress at the moment “different from all other wars”’.24 But we seek to reflect views at all ends of the spectrum that accept that law remains important to conflict and security. We remain of the view that the alternative, inter arma enim silent leges25 is even worse than the (sometimes limited) role that law can play in situations that few would actively seek out. 3. A final word of thanks The Journal of Conflict & Security Law is a collaborative effort at all levels, be it as contributor, board member, referee or assistant - we are a team. As editors, we would like to thank all of those who have helped us make the Journal what it is. We are especially grateful to the present and past members of the Editorial Board for their support and for their numerous reviews of submitted articles. We are also grateful to other reviewers of submissions. Being a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, we would not be able to proceed without the benefit of these reviews. Although it is somewhat invidious to make particular people subject of embarrassing specific mention, we would be remiss in the strongest of ways were we not to mention Emma Anderson, a true friend of the Journal for many years, whose editorial contributions to the team have been invaluable. We have had authors both young and less so, which plays a huge role in helping the Journal to achieve its aims of being, whilst historically interested and informed, capable of reacting to modern developments as fast as the publication process allows. The timescales involved though also mean that we are able to provide a little more careful consideration of the matters we deal with than the ‘off the cuff’ reactions of the Blogosphere, even though the posts to those websites are often very perspicacious. The editors, individually and collectively, thank you for your help with this. We look forward to continuing to hear from thoughtful legal interlocutors at all levels of seniority and supporting the discussions we all seek to advance. It will continue to be a pleasure to be a part of the discussion and development of the areas of law that the Journal seeks to foster. Given that the world currently moves between violent crisis and violent crisis, we are saddened that we will not likely ever become a journal such as the Journal of the History of International Law as new conflicts are very likely to erupt, continue and close in a seemingly endless litany of places. This is unlikely to change, but nor is our dedication to bringing law to bear on them. In the words of the inspirational, last living member of the Prosecution in Nuremberg, Ben Ferencz ‘Law Always Beats War’.26 He may be optimistic, but we at the Journal would like to agree. Even if it is a Sisyphean task to bring such hopes to fruition, we can all contribute in our own way, and we believe our Journal plays its part in this endeavour. Footnotes 1 This was drafted by Rob towards the end of 2020. We have only edited it slightly and completed the references in order to keep it in Rob’s own unique style. 2 If it ever really existed, the timing though was probably coincidental. Admittedly, the very first article in the Commentary was by H McCoubrey, ‘Law and Armed Conflict in the “New World Order”’ (1994) 1 International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 1. 3 F Hampson, ‘War Crimes Fact Finding in Former Yugoslavia’ (1994) 1 International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 28. 4 The risk of reminiscence includes feeling old. 5 C Antonopoulos, ‘The Crisis in Rwanda and the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention’ (1995) 2(1) International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 3; N Tsagourias, ‘The Lost Innocence of Humanity: The Tragedy of Rwanda and the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention’ (1995) 2(2) International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 19. Both of whom were, at the time, at the outset of their careers and are now finely regarded Professors of International Law. 6 To note the change, the Journal began at volume 1. Hence, our 25th anniversary. 7 W Fenrick, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law Through the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’ (1998) 2 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 197. 8 V Gowlland-Debbas, ‘The Relationship Between the United Nations Security Council and the Proposed International Criminal Court’ (1998) 3 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 97. 9 R Murphy, ‘Legal Framework of UN Forces and Issues of Command and Control in Canadian and Irish Forces (1999) 4 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 41. 10 M Shaw, ‘The International Criminal Court: Some Procedural and Evidential Issues’ (1998) 3 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 66. 11 R Müllerson, ‘International Humanitarian Law in Internal Armed Conflicts’ (1997) 2 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 109. 12 See for example (2009) 14(3) JCSL for a special issue on the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, edited by Paul Eden and Matthew Happold, and containing articles from Iain Scobbie, Marko Milanovic, Bill Bowring, Charles Garraway and Robert Cryer. 13 Yes, this is a bad pun, but we did ask for your indulgence at the outset. 14 It was a little after this time (2010) that Robert (Rob) Cryer moved from a decade of being book review editor (having previously been an editorial assistant) to join the ranks of the co-editors. [As an aside Rob would like to add that one of his first jobs as an assistant to write a style sheet (at that time it still was a sheet—it was no Bluebook, thankfully); being asked to do so was as much as a lesson for him for as for the use of the Journal. His citation style in drafts of his PhD had all the consistency of the average contemporary politician.] 15 The continuity between the two was reflected in the consecutive volume numbering. 16 For further explanation, and entertainment value, just read it aloud. 17 See for example (2012) 17(2) JCSL for a special issue on Cyber War and International Law containing articles by Mary Ellen O’Connell, Russell Buchan, Nicholas Tsagourias, Michael Schmitt, Yoram Dinstein and David Turns. 18 <www.academic.oup.com/jcsl/pages/About> 19 There is at least one University (the University of Tromsø) situated within the Arctic Circle, but this area is not considered a continent. To the best of our knowledge, there are no Universities in the Antarctic. If there are and a member of that University wishes to write and correct us, please do so. We will publish your letter and thus retrospectively rectify this possible error in both ways. 20 See for example (2008) 13(1) JCSL for the articles by Amos Guiro, Tarcisio Gazzini and Muge Kinacioglu. 21 EPJ Myjer and Nigel D White, ‘The Twin Tower Attack: An Unlimited Right to Self-Defence?’ (2002) 7 JCSL 5, and R Cryer, ‘The Fine Art of Friendship: Jus in Bello in Afghanistan’ (2002) 7 JCSL 37. 22 N Lamp, ‘Conceptions of War and Paradigms of Compliance: The “New War” Challenge to International Humanitarian Law’ (2011) 16 JCSL 225. 23 C Kreβ ‘Some Reflections on the International Legal Framework Governing Transnational Armed Conflicts’ (2010) 15 JCSL 245. 24 P Jessup, The Law of Neutrality (Columbia University Press 1935) as cited in Georg Schawarzenberger, International Law and Totalitarian Lawlessness (Jonathan Cape 1943) 37, see also his citation, at p 39 of Jessup’s pithy statement that ‘against the all-too-ready and frequent tendency to pin the label of novelty on anything which does not happen to previously happen to have come to one’s attention. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the individual; ignorance of history is no justification for a government’. 25 To paraphrase what is often attributed to Cicero, in his Pro Milone IV para 11 <www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/milo.shtml> 26 <www.benferencz.org/articles/2010-present/law-always-beats-war/> © Oxford University Press 2021; All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Conflict and Security Law Oxford University Press

In Memory of Professor Rob Cryer

Journal of Conflict and Security Law , Volume 26 (1) – May 13, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/in-memory-of-professor-rob-cryer-c4O8kWq3lD
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Oxford University Press
ISSN
1467-7954
eISSN
1467-7962
DOI
10.1093/jcsl/krab003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

It is with great sadness that we have to inform readers and supporters of the Journal that our friend, colleague and co-editor Rob Cryer passed away in January. His generosity, humanity and sense of humour marked him out as special to those who were taught by or worked with him. Tributes from his co-editors I first knew Rob as a lively and engaging LLM student at Nottingham in 1996 where, as well as excelling in his studies, he helped produce the Journal of Armed Conflict Law, which became the Journal of Conflict and Security Law in 2000. Rob then undertook a Ph.D under the supervision of myself and Dino Kritsiotis, and soon after completing that he took up his first post at the University of Manchester in 2001. After a period at Nottingham, he was appointed to a Chair at the University of Birmingham in 2007. Rob authored and co-authored a number of leading books, and a significant number of important chapters and articles, some of which appeared in the Journal. He was always great at thinking of provocative titles for his articles, but the content more than matched, especially in its logic, depth and encyclopaedic knowledge of International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and, more broadly, Public International Law. This is not the place for a review of his massive contribution to scholarship but it is worthwhile remembering with more than a tinge of sadness that he achieved all of this by the age of 46. He had so much more to give and to say he will be sorely missed does not begin to capture the sense of loss I feel. (Nigel D. White) Words cannot begin to reflect the shock I felt on learning the deeply sad news of Rob’s untimely and premature death. It not only meant the loss of a wonderful colleague and fellow-editor of this Journal, but also the loss of a friend. Rob was an optimist by nature, always looking his positive smiling self. This he combined with a great sense of humour. All the many years that he was involved in the Journal he showed himself to be a highly knowledgeable professional: critical but impartial in seeking in each new submission its potential to contribute to the field. Not agreeing with somebody’s point of view would never be a reason to object to it being published. His approach to policy decisions for the Journal was always carefully considered but also properly creative. He always held fast to the view that the Journal had come to have an irreplaceable role in the academic study of conflict and security law. This can be seen from Rob’s draft for an editorial celebrating the 25th year of the journal. What better way to hear it than in his own words, which capture his spirit and sense of humour best. (Eric Myjer) Editorial: the Journal of Conflict & Security Law at 251 1. A brief history We, as the Editors of the Journal, ask your indulgence for reminiscing on the Silver Jubilee of our Journal. It began in the early 1990s, at the end of the notional ‘New World Order’2 as the International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary (1994–95). At that point, we were a small publication that, nonetheless, was supported by great scholars such as Françoise Hampson.3 The Commentary was set up by Nigel White and the late Reverend Professor Hilaire McCoubrey and was published by Nottingham University Press. It was a modest publication (the annual subscription was £11, payable by cheque)4 but, inter alia, contained some of the earliest legal scholarship on the Rwandan Genocide.5 It was the seed of the Journal as we now know it. In 1996, the seed sprang into a sapling. Whilst still being published by Nottingham University Press, it expanded in size, editorial board, authorship and ambition and became the Journal of Armed Conflict Law.6 We were delighted to receive more unsolicited manuscripts. Between the two, we were delighted to have scholars such as William Fenrick,7 Vera-Gowlland Debbas,8 Ray Murphy,9 Rein Müllerson10 and Malcolm Shaw.11 Amongst these, we can count, as well as eminent academics, high-ranking members of the armed forces, those of the ICTY and an ex-foreign minister of Estonia. Their work appeared alongside those at various stages of their careers. This period saw the start of the tradition, which we have kept up, of special issues dedicated to high-level scholarship on matters of contemporary concern.12 At the turn of the Millennium, the seed had become a grown tree, but needed firm soil in which to settle its roots permanently. So Nigel and Eric Myjer, who agreed to join as co-editor adding his expertise in arms control law and collective security law to the Journal’s arsenal,13 decided that for the purposes of distribution and profile to move to Oxford University Press in 2000.14 The Press kindly acceded to that proposal and in order to make clear that the focus of the journal would be broader than that of the law of armed conflict it became the Journal of Conflict & Security Law,15 even if we do rather miss the old acronym (JACL).16 Clarity was the price of the change. It was one worth paying. Although in practice the remit of the Journal has since its beginning been broader than just the Law of Armed Conflict and encompassed a broad spectrum of the interrelation between international law and conflict and security, with the Journal of Conflict & Security Law it would become its foundation. Its focus would be on three interrelated branches (areas) of public international law that apply to conflict and security, namely the law of collective security with its central norms on the use of force and thereby the ius ad bellum, the Law of Armed Conflict (or International Humanitarian Law) and the law of arms control. Hereby, the ius ad bellum is about when use of military force is allowed, with the ius in bello concerned with the way legitimate use of force is applied, and arms control law making clear which weapons are not allowed to be used. They all overlap, and we have always sought to adopt a holistic approach to the area. The first editorial on the aims and objectives of the Journal of Conflict & Security Law explained the broadness of this approach referring to the possible different stages of a conflict from the pre-conflict stage, the stage when there is an actual armed conflict and the post-conflict stage. The Journal of Conflict & Security Law would provide a forum for and stimulate discussion in all of these areas: The Journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues include those of arms control, disarmament and conflict prevention, through the outbreak of armed conflict and discussion of the legality of resort to force (the jus ad bellum), to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law (the jus in bello). Treatment is also given to the stage of conflict resolution where the legal issues are multifarious but may concern territory, compensation and again disarmament. Collective security mechanisms are applicable throughout these different stages, with, for example, a peacekeeping force being a possibility either as a method of preventing or ending the hostilities. (…) it is difficult to gain a full understanding of the legal regime surrounding collective security without knowledge of humanitarian law or the law of arms control. Given that any of these branches of international law may have elements in common, it can also be held that this very interlocking (linking) may lead to the application of similar norms and principles. This is not surprising for depending on the subject matter these respective branches may concern elements like the application of military force, weapons, fighting techniques – including targeting – and military security. We would like to think that we have kept to that mission, whilst being reflexive to new and emerging fields of conflict and security law such as that relating to cyberwarfare.17 This is reflected in our current statement of purpose18 where the journal is aimed at a broad audience namely academics, government officials, military lawyers and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals interested in the areas of arms control law, armed conflict law and collective security law, and the interfaces between them. In the wider journal landscape, the Journal of Conflict & Security Law has a unique position and stands out. Our global perspective can also be seen by our range of contributors, who come from all backgrounds, practitioner, academic, military and others. They are also from all around the world. We have published articles by authors from every continent on Earth with a University.19 We have always welcomed submissions with only one major criterion other than relevance to our remit: quality. We seek to publish the best scholarship on point irrespective of the author or their background. We also would like to think that we have always been diverse, but also know this is something that we can always work on further. We invite constructive suggestions on how we may do so. This also covers the Journal’s approach to theoretical traditions (whether explicit, subtextual or sublimated). We seek open, non-aggressive scholarly debate. We do not encourage polemics, but reasoned discussions. Out broad approach though has been to be ecumenical, we would not refuse to publish a piece because we disagree with it, individually or collectively as editors, as long as it is thoughtful, and an original contribution to debate. We do not have a dogmatic editorial ‘line’ and sometimes (although far less than may be expected) do not agree amongst ourselves on the conclusions contributors reach but do not allow that to interfere with publishing thought-provoking pieces. Indeed, we are more than happy to publish scholarly responses to pieces if there is serious disagreement.20 2. Where we wish to go, with all of the conflict and security community As said above, the Journal began in the 1990s and has therefore seen huge changes in the world, from the Journal’s prequel in the naively vaunted ‘New World Order’ (to which the editorial position was not to tie our flag to that mast, or any flagpole at all). This purported order disintegrated (if it ever existed) in the early years of the Journal, leading to a level of cynicism about the ability of law to relate to issues of conflict. Then, of course, there was 11 September 2001, when the USA for the first time in half a century (after Pearl Harbour) was attacked by means of hijacked planes being flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre (the attacks on US Embassies a few years before did not have the same impact). The Journal responded with the publication of a number of pieces, including by two of the editors, and on cognate matters a little later by the third.21 Even after the assertion on some parts of the commentariat that in the modern era, the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus leads to the conclusion that the law here is neither relevant or no longer applicable, the Journal kept to its strong belief that the law is always relevant, and a rejection of this position is pernicious. This theme was taken up in an American Society of International Law Lieber Prize winning piece by Nicolas Lamp that came out in the Journal on the ideas of ‘new wars’22 and, even before that, Claus Kreβ’s piece on transnational armed conflicts.23 We are more than aware that the nature of armed conflict is mutating, but also that, as Philip Jessup said before the Second World War, ‘of all the clichés which infect patriotic exhortations, the most subtly poisonous is that which calls the war in progress at the moment “different from all other wars”’.24 But we seek to reflect views at all ends of the spectrum that accept that law remains important to conflict and security. We remain of the view that the alternative, inter arma enim silent leges25 is even worse than the (sometimes limited) role that law can play in situations that few would actively seek out. 3. A final word of thanks The Journal of Conflict & Security Law is a collaborative effort at all levels, be it as contributor, board member, referee or assistant - we are a team. As editors, we would like to thank all of those who have helped us make the Journal what it is. We are especially grateful to the present and past members of the Editorial Board for their support and for their numerous reviews of submitted articles. We are also grateful to other reviewers of submissions. Being a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, we would not be able to proceed without the benefit of these reviews. Although it is somewhat invidious to make particular people subject of embarrassing specific mention, we would be remiss in the strongest of ways were we not to mention Emma Anderson, a true friend of the Journal for many years, whose editorial contributions to the team have been invaluable. We have had authors both young and less so, which plays a huge role in helping the Journal to achieve its aims of being, whilst historically interested and informed, capable of reacting to modern developments as fast as the publication process allows. The timescales involved though also mean that we are able to provide a little more careful consideration of the matters we deal with than the ‘off the cuff’ reactions of the Blogosphere, even though the posts to those websites are often very perspicacious. The editors, individually and collectively, thank you for your help with this. We look forward to continuing to hear from thoughtful legal interlocutors at all levels of seniority and supporting the discussions we all seek to advance. It will continue to be a pleasure to be a part of the discussion and development of the areas of law that the Journal seeks to foster. Given that the world currently moves between violent crisis and violent crisis, we are saddened that we will not likely ever become a journal such as the Journal of the History of International Law as new conflicts are very likely to erupt, continue and close in a seemingly endless litany of places. This is unlikely to change, but nor is our dedication to bringing law to bear on them. In the words of the inspirational, last living member of the Prosecution in Nuremberg, Ben Ferencz ‘Law Always Beats War’.26 He may be optimistic, but we at the Journal would like to agree. Even if it is a Sisyphean task to bring such hopes to fruition, we can all contribute in our own way, and we believe our Journal plays its part in this endeavour. Footnotes 1 This was drafted by Rob towards the end of 2020. We have only edited it slightly and completed the references in order to keep it in Rob’s own unique style. 2 If it ever really existed, the timing though was probably coincidental. Admittedly, the very first article in the Commentary was by H McCoubrey, ‘Law and Armed Conflict in the “New World Order”’ (1994) 1 International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 1. 3 F Hampson, ‘War Crimes Fact Finding in Former Yugoslavia’ (1994) 1 International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 28. 4 The risk of reminiscence includes feeling old. 5 C Antonopoulos, ‘The Crisis in Rwanda and the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention’ (1995) 2(1) International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 3; N Tsagourias, ‘The Lost Innocence of Humanity: The Tragedy of Rwanda and the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention’ (1995) 2(2) International Law and Armed Conflict Commentary 19. Both of whom were, at the time, at the outset of their careers and are now finely regarded Professors of International Law. 6 To note the change, the Journal began at volume 1. Hence, our 25th anniversary. 7 W Fenrick, ‘The Development of International Humanitarian Law Through the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’ (1998) 2 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 197. 8 V Gowlland-Debbas, ‘The Relationship Between the United Nations Security Council and the Proposed International Criminal Court’ (1998) 3 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 97. 9 R Murphy, ‘Legal Framework of UN Forces and Issues of Command and Control in Canadian and Irish Forces (1999) 4 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 41. 10 M Shaw, ‘The International Criminal Court: Some Procedural and Evidential Issues’ (1998) 3 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 66. 11 R Müllerson, ‘International Humanitarian Law in Internal Armed Conflicts’ (1997) 2 Journal of Armed Conflict Law 109. 12 See for example (2009) 14(3) JCSL for a special issue on the relationship between International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, edited by Paul Eden and Matthew Happold, and containing articles from Iain Scobbie, Marko Milanovic, Bill Bowring, Charles Garraway and Robert Cryer. 13 Yes, this is a bad pun, but we did ask for your indulgence at the outset. 14 It was a little after this time (2010) that Robert (Rob) Cryer moved from a decade of being book review editor (having previously been an editorial assistant) to join the ranks of the co-editors. [As an aside Rob would like to add that one of his first jobs as an assistant to write a style sheet (at that time it still was a sheet—it was no Bluebook, thankfully); being asked to do so was as much as a lesson for him for as for the use of the Journal. His citation style in drafts of his PhD had all the consistency of the average contemporary politician.] 15 The continuity between the two was reflected in the consecutive volume numbering. 16 For further explanation, and entertainment value, just read it aloud. 17 See for example (2012) 17(2) JCSL for a special issue on Cyber War and International Law containing articles by Mary Ellen O’Connell, Russell Buchan, Nicholas Tsagourias, Michael Schmitt, Yoram Dinstein and David Turns. 18 <www.academic.oup.com/jcsl/pages/About> 19 There is at least one University (the University of Tromsø) situated within the Arctic Circle, but this area is not considered a continent. To the best of our knowledge, there are no Universities in the Antarctic. If there are and a member of that University wishes to write and correct us, please do so. We will publish your letter and thus retrospectively rectify this possible error in both ways. 20 See for example (2008) 13(1) JCSL for the articles by Amos Guiro, Tarcisio Gazzini and Muge Kinacioglu. 21 EPJ Myjer and Nigel D White, ‘The Twin Tower Attack: An Unlimited Right to Self-Defence?’ (2002) 7 JCSL 5, and R Cryer, ‘The Fine Art of Friendship: Jus in Bello in Afghanistan’ (2002) 7 JCSL 37. 22 N Lamp, ‘Conceptions of War and Paradigms of Compliance: The “New War” Challenge to International Humanitarian Law’ (2011) 16 JCSL 225. 23 C Kreβ ‘Some Reflections on the International Legal Framework Governing Transnational Armed Conflicts’ (2010) 15 JCSL 245. 24 P Jessup, The Law of Neutrality (Columbia University Press 1935) as cited in Georg Schawarzenberger, International Law and Totalitarian Lawlessness (Jonathan Cape 1943) 37, see also his citation, at p 39 of Jessup’s pithy statement that ‘against the all-too-ready and frequent tendency to pin the label of novelty on anything which does not happen to previously happen to have come to one’s attention. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for the individual; ignorance of history is no justification for a government’. 25 To paraphrase what is often attributed to Cicero, in his Pro Milone IV para 11 <www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/milo.shtml> 26 <www.benferencz.org/articles/2010-present/law-always-beats-war/> © Oxford University Press 2021; All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Journal

Journal of Conflict and Security LawOxford University Press

Published: May 13, 2021

There are no references for this article.