Resisting Clarity: Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Resisting Clarity : Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate. / Schack, Marc.

I: Nordic Journal of International Law, Bind 90, Nr. 1, 2021, s. 31-59.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Schack, M 2021, 'Resisting Clarity: Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate', Nordic Journal of International Law, bind 90, nr. 1, s. 31-59. https://doi.org//10.1163/15718107-bja10021

APA

Schack, M. (2021). Resisting Clarity: Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate. Nordic Journal of International Law, 90(1), 31-59. https://doi.org//10.1163/15718107-bja10021

Vancouver

Schack M. Resisting Clarity: Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate. Nordic Journal of International Law. 2021;90(1):31-59. https://doi.org//10.1163/15718107-bja10021

Author

Schack, Marc. / Resisting Clarity : Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate. I: Nordic Journal of International Law. 2021 ; Bind 90, Nr. 1. s. 31-59.

Bibtex

@article{b801f2b402a24a888639981513c87064,
title = "Resisting Clarity: Scandinavian Ambiguity in the {\textquoteleft}Unable or Unwilling{\textquoteright}-Debate",
abstract = "When conflict arose between Iraq, Iraq{\textquoteright}s US-led allies, and the terrorist group isil in 2014, legal scholars paid close attention. Amid the fighting these scholars tried to determine if the States getting involved, including Denmark and Norway, did so on the basis of a belief in the validity of the {\textquoteleft}Unable or Unwilling{\textquoteright}-doctrine of self-defence. While some States were clear on this matter, Denmark and Norway both seemed ambiguous and hesitant – and were therefore habitually deemed sceptics of the doctrine. This article demonstrates, however, that this conclusion cannot be sustained. This insight is put forward, firstly, to correct a misleading narrative about the {\textquoteleft}Unable or Unwilling{\textquoteright}-doctrine, and, secondly, to caution against relying on State practice and statements when doing so tells an uneven story and leads to disconnects between what States do and what they say – especially when there are palpable political reasons for States to resist clarity.",
author = "Marc Schack",
year = "2021",
doi = "/10.1163/15718107-bja10021",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
pages = "31--59",
journal = "Nordic Journal of International Law",
issn = "0902-7351",
publisher = "Brill - Nijhoff",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resisting Clarity

T2 - Scandinavian Ambiguity in the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-Debate

AU - Schack, Marc

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - When conflict arose between Iraq, Iraq’s US-led allies, and the terrorist group isil in 2014, legal scholars paid close attention. Amid the fighting these scholars tried to determine if the States getting involved, including Denmark and Norway, did so on the basis of a belief in the validity of the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-doctrine of self-defence. While some States were clear on this matter, Denmark and Norway both seemed ambiguous and hesitant – and were therefore habitually deemed sceptics of the doctrine. This article demonstrates, however, that this conclusion cannot be sustained. This insight is put forward, firstly, to correct a misleading narrative about the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-doctrine, and, secondly, to caution against relying on State practice and statements when doing so tells an uneven story and leads to disconnects between what States do and what they say – especially when there are palpable political reasons for States to resist clarity.

AB - When conflict arose between Iraq, Iraq’s US-led allies, and the terrorist group isil in 2014, legal scholars paid close attention. Amid the fighting these scholars tried to determine if the States getting involved, including Denmark and Norway, did so on the basis of a belief in the validity of the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-doctrine of self-defence. While some States were clear on this matter, Denmark and Norway both seemed ambiguous and hesitant – and were therefore habitually deemed sceptics of the doctrine. This article demonstrates, however, that this conclusion cannot be sustained. This insight is put forward, firstly, to correct a misleading narrative about the ‘Unable or Unwilling’-doctrine, and, secondly, to caution against relying on State practice and statements when doing so tells an uneven story and leads to disconnects between what States do and what they say – especially when there are palpable political reasons for States to resist clarity.

U2 - /10.1163/15718107-bja10021

DO - /10.1163/15718107-bja10021

M3 - Journal article

VL - 90

SP - 31

EP - 59

JO - Nordic Journal of International Law

JF - Nordic Journal of International Law

SN - 0902-7351

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 360334055