{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017345399698340876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.11520737327189, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conceptions of a Rule-Governed International Order: Europe vs. America?

Differences between American and European conceptions of a rule-governed international order can be observed via an examination of the legal regimes governing the conduct of American and British troops in Iraq. In principle, the US military authorities recognise the authority of international humanitarian law with respect to, for example, the treatment of prisoners and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, but in other respects they are able to prosecute the war against the insurgency in a conventional way. British troops, on the other hand, are obliged to act in accordance with a much more restrictive legal regime, based on changes introduced subsequent to Britain's membership of the International Criminal Court. Under this regime, British military forces in Basra are subject to much the same kind of rules concerning the use of force that govern the operation of civilian police forces in Western Europe. This ‘European’ attempt to control the way in which force is used is widely seen as a positive move in the direction of minimising the role of force in international relations – but such a judgement is questionable since there may well be circumstances where the effective use of force is both necessary and justified.