Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:46:21.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Undoing the Legal Capacities of a Military Object: A Case Study on the (In)Visibility of Civilians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Martina Kolanoski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

International law dictates that actors in armed conflicts must distinguish between combatants and civilians. But how do legal actors assess the legality of a military operation after the fact? I analyze a civil proceeding for compensation by victims of a German-led airstrike in Afghanistan. The court treated military video as key evidence. I show how lawyers, judges, and expert witnesses categorized those involved by asking what a “military viewer” would make of the pictures. During the hearing, they avoided the categories of combatants/civilians; the military object resisted legal coding. I examine the decision in its procedural context, using ethnographic field notes and legal documents. I combine two ethnomethodological analytics: a trans-sequential approach and membership categorization analysis. I show the value of this combination for the sociological analysis of legal practice. I also propose that legal practitioners should use this approach to assess military viewing as a concerted, situated activity.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Spring 2017 , pp. 377 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Boudeau, Carole. 2007. Producing Threat Assessments: An Ethnomethodological Perspective on Intelligence on Iraq's Aluminium Tubes. In Technology and Security, ed. Rappert, Brian, 66–86. New Security Challenges Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, Alan. 2006. “Civilian casualty”? That's a Gray Area: Those Who Support Terrorists Are Not Entirely Innocent. Los Angeles Times, July 22. http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/jul/22/opinion/oe-dershowitz22 (accessed March 30, 2015).Google Scholar
Friesendorf, Cornelius. 2012. International Intervention and the Use of Force: Military and Police Roles. SSR Paper. Geneva: Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1994. Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–33.Google Scholar
Henn, Elizabeth V. 2014. The Development of German Jurisprudence on Individual Compensation for Victims of Armed Conflicts: The Kunduz Case. Journal of International Criminal Justice 12 (3): 615–37.Google Scholar
Housley, William, and Fitzgerald, Richard. 2003. Moral Discrepancy and Political Discourse: Accountability and the Allocation of Blame in a Political News Interview. Sociological Research Online. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/8/2/housley.html (accessed January 18, 2015).Google Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena. 1984. Categorization and the Moral Order. International Library of Phenomenology and Moral Sciences. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jayyusi, Lena. 2015. Discursive Cartographies, Moral Practices: International Law and the Gaza War. In Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods, ed. Dupret, Baudouin, Lynch, Michael, and Berard, Tim, 273–98. Oxford Studies in Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, Mary. 2013. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lepper, Georgia. 1995. Making Trouble: The Uses of “Formal Organization” as an Institutional Resource. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies 1 (2): 189–207.Google Scholar
Licoppe, Christian. 2015. Categorization Work in the Courtroom: The “Foundational” Character of Membership Categorization Analysis. In Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis, ed. Fitzgerald, Richard and Housley, William, 71–98. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael, and Bogen, David. 1997. Lies, Recollections and Categorical Judgements in Testimony. In Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. Stephen Hester and Peter Eglin, 99–122. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis No. 4. Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis/University Press of America.Google Scholar
Mair, Michael, Elsey, Chris, Watson, Patrick G., and Smith, Paul V. 2013. Interpretive Asymmetry, Retrospective Inquiry and the Explication of Action in an Incident of Friendly Fire. Symbolic Interaction 36 (4): 398–416.Google Scholar
Münkler, Herfried. 2004. Die Neuen Kriege. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Odermatt, Jed. 2013. Between Law and Reality: “New Wars” and International Armed Conflict. Amsterdam Law Forum Summer:19–32.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1972a. An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. Sudnow, David, 31–74. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1972b. Notes on Police Assessment of Moral Character. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. Sudnow, David, 280–93. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1972c. On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell, 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1989. Lecture Six: The M.I.R. Membership Categorization Device. Human Studies 12:271–81.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lecture 14: The Navy Pilot. In Lectures on Conversation, Volumes I and II, 205–22. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schank, Jan. 2012/13. Wissen was Jugendbeeinträchtigt ist ‐ Membership Categorization in der Alterskennzeichnung von Computerspielen. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 33 (1): 31–49.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2007. Event and Process: An Exercise in Analytical Ethnography. Human Studies 30 (3): 167–97.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Thomas. 2010. Knowing How to Sleepwalk: Placing Expert Evidence in the Midst of an English Jury Trial. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (5): 620–44.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. A Tutorial on Membership Categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 462–82.Google Scholar
Schuppli, Susan. 2014. Entering Evidence: Cross‐Examining the Court Records of the ICTY. In Forensis: The Architecture of Public Truth, ed. Franke, Anselm and Weizman, Eyal, 279–314. Berlin: Sternberg Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth H., and Smithson, Janet. 2001. Making Gender Relevant: Conversation Analysis and Gender Categories in Interaction. Discourse & Society 12 (2): 217–44.Google Scholar
Watson, D. R. 1978. Categorization, Authorization and Blame—Negotiation in Conversation. Sociology 12 (1): 105–13.Google Scholar
Winiecki, Donald. 2008. The Expert Witnesses and Courtroom Discourse: Applying Micro and Macro Forms of Discourse Analysis to Study Process and the “Doings of Doings” for Individuals and for Society. Discourse & Society 19 (6): 765–81.Google Scholar
Wolff, Stephan. 1995. Text und Schuld: Die Rhetorik Psychiatrischer Gerichtsgutachten. Materiale Soziologie 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag. 2011. Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Verteidigungsausschusses als 1. Untersuchungsausschuss, 25.10.2011, BT.‐Drucks. 17/7400.Google Scholar
Project information on the Panopticopter: http://kickstriker.com/panopticopter for more details (accessed March 28, 2014).Google Scholar
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), judgment, (action for compensation Vavarin), – III ZR 190/05 (2006).Google Scholar
Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (Attorney General), decision to terminate criminal investigations, (Kunduz airstrike, 04.09.2009), Az 3 BJs 6/10‐4, public version (2010).Google Scholar
Landgericht Bonn (Regional Court), judgment, (action for compensation Kunduz airstrike), – Az O 460/11 (2013).Google Scholar
Staatsanwaltschaft (prosecution) Frankfurt/Oder, decision to terminate criminal investigations, (checkpoint killing, 28.08.2008), press release (2009).Google Scholar
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 1977Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law Database: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/ Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag. 2011. Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Verteidigungsausschusses als 1. Untersuchungsausschuss, 25.10.2011, BT.‐Drucks. 17/7400.Google Scholar
Project information on the Panopticopter: http://kickstriker.com/panopticopter for more details (accessed March 28, 2014).Google Scholar
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), judgment, (action for compensation Vavarin), – III ZR 190/05 (2006).Google Scholar
Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof (Attorney General), decision to terminate criminal investigations, (Kunduz airstrike, 04.09.2009), Az 3 BJs 6/10‐4, public version (2010).Google Scholar
Landgericht Bonn (Regional Court), judgment, (action for compensation Kunduz airstrike), – Az O 460/11 (2013).Google Scholar
Staatsanwaltschaft (prosecution) Frankfurt/Oder, decision to terminate criminal investigations, (checkpoint killing, 28.08.2008), press release (2009).Google Scholar
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 1977Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law Database: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/ Google Scholar