Description
This paper examines how the “standard of civilisation” continues to influence the use of violence and its legitimacy in contemporary international politics. While this concept historically functioned to differentiate between “civilised” and “uncivilised” persons, this paper argues that its underlying logic continues to shape how states are judged and how their use of force is understood.
By focusing on Israel’s military acts in Lebanon, this paper highlights a consistent asymmetry: violence carried out by Israel is widely accepted as legitimate acts of self-defence even though they involve incursion into Lebanese sovereign territory. On the other hand, Lebanon is often seen as a fragile state that is incapable of enforcing its sovereignty. This discrepancy is not a mere reflection of politics but rather one of a deep hierarchy where legitimacy is conditional on conforming with dominant forms of statehood.
Drawing on postcolonial international relations theory and previous original research on the securitization and racialization of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, this paper illustrates how comparable logics function across both international and local contexts. It argues that securitization works as a mechanism through which states and people are categorized which enables the normalization of certain forms of violence and not others.