Desensitising Modern Warfare through International Law

This paper reflects upon the representations of war in international legal language. It discusses the representation of the Siege on Homs (2011-2014) using the medium of international law. These reflections raise questions about international law’s relationship with the reality of contemporary war defined by colonial residues and imperial ambitions. The language of international law represents war in a manner desensitised to some forms of violence, particularly those imposed collectively, economically, or inflicted on the Other of international law. Such desensitisation is a built-in feature of international legal language. To make this argument, I first study international law as a language that shapes our perceptions of reality and then I reflect on how this language can distort our perception of reality. Thereafter, I demonstrate how solipsism, dissociative tendencies and hyper-rationalism work to sustain distorted perceptions of reality and effectively desensitise our perception of contemporary warfare. To counter such desensitisation, I propose a methodological approach that centres precarity and structural injustice at the heart of our reckoning with the reality of warfare.