Friends and foes of the privatization of norm enforcement share a commitment to the rule of law. Its moderate friends believe that norm enforcement can comply with the rule of law even if it is carried out by private actors. Its radical friends hold that the rule of law obtains only if private actors are given an essential role in the enforcement of norms. Contrastingly, enemies of privatization object to it on the grounds that private actors are simply unable properly to enforce norms in compliance with the rule of law. This chapter argues that Hadfield and Weingast’s radical defense of the privatization of norm enforcement does not translate well to the use of war as a means to enforce international norms, whatever its merits in municipal contexts. It then rejects one of the most plausible arguments against all forms of privatized norm enforcement in general, and of war enforcement in particular, recently developed by Alon Harel. Drawing on the criticisms of those two views, the author provides an argument for the moderate privatization of war.
NYU Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.