The overlap between war and crime: unpacking Foucault and Agamben’s studies within the context of the war on terror

This article will consider the current convergence between war and crime by unpacking Foucault’s analysis of power and Agamben’s elaboration on the conjunction between the banning of a life and the constitution of the polity. It will show that these perspectives link together crime and war as mechanisms that contribute to the governance of the population by legitimating authority and their use of force through the military and the police while excluding part of the population. It will expose how these convergences highlight the problem of the political in the constitution of the social order at the global level. In the current contingency, crime and war are strongly implicated in the crucial political function of calling people to share their similarities and differences, and yet are not the best mechanisms for dealing with the sharing of a world in common.

Crime, justice and the legitimacy of military power in the international sphere

This article examines how a discourse of crime and justice is beginning to play a significant role in justifying international military operations. It suggests that although the coupling of war with crime and justice is not a new phenomenon, its present manifestations invite careful consideration of the connection between crime and political theory. It starts by reviewing the notion of sovereignty to look then at the history of the criminalisation of war and the emergence of new norms to constrain sovereign states. In this context, it examines the three ways in which military force has recently been authorised: in Iraq, in Libya and through drones in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. It argues the contemporary coupling of military technology with notions of crime and justice allows the reiteration of the perpetration of crimes by the powerful and the representation of violence as pertaining to specific dangerous populations in the space of the international. It further suggests that this authorises new architectures of authority, fundamentally based on military power as a source of social power.