Unrestricted (pronounced uhn-ri-strik-tid)
(1) Not
restricted or confined.
(2) In the
classification of documents, having no security classification.
1766: The
construct was un-+ restrict + -ed. The
un- prefix was from the Middle English un-,
from the Old English un-, from the
Proto-West Germanic un-, from the
Proto-Germanic un-, from the
primitive Indo-European n̥-. It was
cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- & on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German
un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the
Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.
It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ-
(a-), source of the English a-, the
Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ-
(a-). The verb restrict was in use by at
least the 1530s in the sense of “to limit, bound, confine (someone or
something), prevent from passing a certain limit in any kind of action” and was
from the Latin restrictus, past
participle of restringere (bind fast,
restrain) and perfect passive participle of restringō
(draw back tightly; restrain, restrict), the construct being re- (back, again) + stringō (press, tighten, compress); as an adjective, it was a
doublet of ristretto. By the
eighteenth century, the word had come to be regarded as a Scotticism but the
infection spread quickly to Standard English.
As the past-participle adjective from restrict (in the sense of
“limited, confined”), restricted has become associated with the classification
of government documents, in the sense of “not for public release”, use seems
not to have been routine until 1944 when a system of classification was
codified by the US government. Prior to
that, although restrictions of distribution were common, concepts such as
“Restricted to [names or designations]”, “Secret”, “Top Secret” etc were used
but there was no standardization within departments or even between branches of
the military. When
used as a suffix to form possessional adjectives from nouns, -ed was from the
Middle English -ed, from the Old
English -od (the adjectival suffix),
from the Proto-Germanic -ōdaz, from
the primitive Indo-European -ehtos. It was cognate with the Latin -ātus.
In use, the older adjectival use was simply “restrict” and although “unrestricted” would seem an absolute (ie something either is restricted or it is not), dictionaries confirm the comparative is “more unrestricted” and the superlative “most unrestricted” although at least one style guide notes those forms can be regarded in a similar way as “very unique” (ie technically incorrect but widely used and well-understood. The related adverb “restrictedly” was and remains rare. In the US, well into the twentieth century, the appearance of the word “restricted” in advertisements, signage and such was verbal shorthand for (depending on context and location): “No Jews”, “No coloreds” etc. Although the words “unrestricted” & “derestricted” describe similar states, different histories are implied and that’s a product of the ways in which the absence of restrictions came about. Unrestricted means literally “no restrictions” (access to something or somewhere; rights to engage in trade etc). “Derestricted” means that previously restrictions must have been imposed but those have since been removed. The use applies to document classifications and in the now rare cases of roads with no speed limits (although some of those were something of a linguistic outlier because in many cases they never had any restrictions to be derestricted. For obvious reasons, in English, “unrestricted” is the more commonly used form. Unrestricted, unrestrictive & unrestrictable are adjectives, unrestrictedness is a noun and unrestrictedly is an adverb.
1978 Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL 6.9 on the Northern Territory's derestricted roads. Top speed of UK-delivered “Euro spec” 6.9 (ie one not fitted with the power-sapping anti-emission devices fitted to those built for sale in the US or Australia) turned out to be a verified 237 km/h (147 mph) which reflected the experience of European testers who achieved 238 km/h (148) mph on the German Autobahns. Unexceptional now, in 1978 such pace was a reasonable achievement for a heavy cruiser with pre-modern aerodynamics and at high-speed, the fuel consumption was awe inspiring.
Idealistic lawyers (they do exist) and others have for centuries argued it is the existence of and adherence to laws which makes possible civilized societies, the alternative often expressed as “the law of the jungle”, best understood in the vernacular “kill or be killed” world in which life of man was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, memorably described in Leviathan (1651) by the very clever and deliciously wicked English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). However, what the lawyers, at least privately, acknowledge is the extent of adherence to laws closely is tied to (1) their enforcement and (2) a layered system of punishments for transgressions. In domestic legal systems, this is comprehended as the apparatus extending from receiving a fine for overstaying one’s time at a parking meter to being hanged for murder; the existence of laws does not prevent crime but the perception of the chance of detection and the subsequent penalty for many operates as a deterrent and the debates about relationship between certain penalties and their deterrent effect continue.
In war, although usually the opposing sides have geo-political objectives, for those doing the fighting, historically the business was about killing each other and in practice that of course quickly and understandably came to imply “by whatever means possible” but for many centuries there have been conventions which form of “rules of war”, the most celebrated the various chivalric codes (codified during of the Middle Ages) which sought to regulate the behaviour of soldiers, particularly towards civilians. However, as US Navy Captain Alfred Mahan (1840–1914) pointed out in the epoch-making The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1890), it’s impossible by mere agreement to outlaw the use of a militarily effective weapon so is it any more plausible for a statute, treaty or agreement to limit “mission creep” in the methods? Whatever knightly codes may have existed, there seems little doubt that on the battlefield (or the towns subject to rape & pillage) habits do tend towards “unrestricted warfare”, military historians and legal theorists often pondering whether in “existential conflicts”, law reasonably can be expected to retain its intended force.
In what was a rhetorical flourish rather than a substantive legal point, in the dock before the IMT (International Military Tribunal) which in 1945-1946 sat in Nuremberg to try 22 of the surviving senior Nazis, Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) claimed to be quoting Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in citing: “In the struggle for life and death there is in the end no legality.” Like William Shakespeare (1564–1616), a few phrases have been attributed to Churchill on the basis of “sounding Churchillian” and although there’s nothing in the record to support the case those exact words ever passed his lips, Göring’s paraphrase was not unreasonable. After the fall of France in 1940, Churchill did make clear his view “there could be no justice if, in a mortal struggle, the aggressor tramples humanity while those resisting remain bound by violated conventions” by which he meant if the Nazis ignored international law, it was an absurdity for the Allies fully to remain constrained by it while fighting for their very survival. Churchill was not advocating the rejection of established law as a principle; he was saying when a state faces the prospect of destruction at the hand of an enemy ignoring the accepted rules of war, strict legalism must not be allowed to prevent an effective defence. That wasn’t a novel idea Churchill formed upon assuming the premiership. Months earlier, when serving as First Lord of the Admiralty (minister for the navy), he’d discussed whether the UK should regard itself still restricted by the legal conventions Germany’s forces were ignoring: “The Germans have torn up the conventions and the usages of war. We cannot allow ourselves to be bound by rules which the enemy does not observe if by doing so we place our country in mortal danger.” While not exactly the words used by Göring in the dock, he captured the spirit of Churchill’s meaning.
Of course
on 15 March 1946, borrowing the thoughts of “…one
of our greatest, most important, and toughest opponents…” to support his argument modern,
industrial, total war had rendered irrelevant traditional legal restraints, he
was still harbouring the (faint) hope he might escape the noose and thus
has a good motive in seeking to undermine the moral authority of the tribunal
by suggesting even Churchill had acknowledged that in existential war, legal
rules collapse. This was not the
construction of legal theory in the abstract, just as Churchill was explaining
the pragmatic nature of military necessity because as he pointed out: “without victory
there is no survival” and were the UK unilaterally to obey the rules
while its opponents did not, the nation might lose the war. Neither man ever sought to maintain that in
war laws vanish, only that as demanded in extraordinary and reprehensible
circumstances, they may need to be ignored.
Essentially, Churchill was asserting he wasn’t prepared to behave with
the propriety of Caesar’s wife while Göring cavorted with Caesar’s whores; with
that the Reichmarshall would have agreed and although his hopes the tribunal might find his paraphrased defence exculpatory were by then faint indeed, he still had an eye on how he hoped to appear in the history books.
The
doctrine of military necessity of course dates from the first time some
prehistoric character picked up a stick or rock to gain tactical advantage in an
argument and despite the various codes of warfare promulgated over millennia by
philosophers, priests and politicians, that doctrine survived into the age of musketry and later, atomic bombs. It’s the Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz
(1780–1831) who often is quoted because, with his commendable economy of
phrase, succinctly he explained why necessity so often prevails over legality
in existential war. In On War (1832), he observed “War is an act of
force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force”
and, anticipating the idealists, added: “Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some
ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed… Pleasant
as it sounds, it is a fallacy.”
What Clausewitz called Kriegsräson
(necessity in war) meant in practice was (1) war has an inherent tendency
toward escalation, because each side must use whatever means are necessary to
defeat the other and (2) “arms races” will tend to ensue.
Later in
the century, German military jurists expressed this logic through the principle
Kriegsräson geht vor Kriegsmanier
(military necessity overrides the customary rules of war) by which they meant
the laws and customs of war could be followed only to the extent adherence did
not impose an unacceptable military cost; if survival (and in practice: “immediate advantage”) demanded those rules be violated, necessity prevails. What was at the time the most outrageous
admission of the application of the doctrine came in 1914 after Germany
violated Belgium’s neutrality and was delivered by Theobald von
Bethmann Hollweg (1856–1921) who between 1909-1917 served as one of a series of inadequate
replacements of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire
(the “Second Reich”) 1871-1890); imperial chancellor of the German Empire
1909-1917). In what must remain among
the more ill-advised statements delivered by a politician, von Bethmann Hollweg on 4
August 1914 stood in the Reichstag (lower house of the imperial parliament) and
explained to assembled members the German war-plan required the army marching
Belgium to attack France and that Germany being a signatory to the Treaty of
London (1839) which guaranteed Belgium’s neutrality had been rendered
irrelevant by military necessity, the always quoted passage being: “We are violating
international law, but necessity knows no law.” Not all historians agree Realpolitik held
a greater fascination for Germans than others but for students of the art, the
chancellor’s speech appears in just about every text-book on the subject. Warming to his theme, when the British
ambassador to Germany protested the violation, von Bethmann Hollweg responded
it would be an absurdity were Britain to go to war “just for a scrap of paper” (that
scrap being the treaty the Germans had in 1839 signed as co-guarantors of Belgian
neutrality). That cynical turn of phrase was
echoed a generation later when, under cross-examination in the dock at Nuremberg, Göring almost gloatingly admitted he and the other leading Nazis had
regarded the many treaties they’d signed as “just so much toilet paper.”
Like many a defendant, the defrocked Reichmarshall was at times evasive or dissembling but on the matter of the regime’s attitude to treaties, he was truthful. A highlight of the 50th birthday celebration for Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nazi Germany 1938-1945) had been the presentation to the minister of a diamond-studded casket containing facsimiles of all the treaties he had signed during (his admittedly busy if not productive) tenure. When one of his aides remarked that there were only “a few treaties we had not broken”, Ribbentrop was briefly uncertain how to react until he saw “…Hitler’s eyes filled with tears of laughter.” It was said to be a good party which must have been welcome because by 1943 there wasn't much to celebrate in Berlin. Like Göring, Ribbentrop, was convicted on all four counts (planning aggressive war, waging aggressive war, war crimes & crimes against humanity) and sentenced to be hanged; his life did end on the gallows, unlike Göring who, in circumstances never explained, cheated the hangman by taking poison.
One of the intriguing legal matters explored before the IMT was the matter of the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare” and those discussions were recalled when, early in March, 2026, the Pentagon announced a USN (US Navy) submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Iranian Navy’s IRIS Dena (a Moudge-class frigate) with the loss of more than half the ship’s compliment of 130-odd. Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US Secretary of Defense (and War) since 2025) described the act as one of “quiet death” although that was a reference to the torpedo’s stealthy approach rather than the explosions which doomed ship and crew. It was the USN’s first sinking of an enemy warship by torpedo since World War II (1939-1945) and because (1) the US and Iran undeniably are in a “state of armed conflict” (any legal distinction between that and “war” as traditionally defined ceasing decades earlier much to matter), (2) the Dena was a warship and (3) the action took place in international waters, the attack doubtlessly was within the rules of war and the reaction of Tehran in branding it an “atrocity at sea” was a political rather than legal claim.
What
however remains of interest is the recent change in tactics by the US which now
uses military-level missiles to target and sink what appear to be civilian
vessels from Central America, the White House claiming the boats are being used to smuggle narcotics. When
considering the lawfulness of “unrestricted submarine warfare”, the IMT in 1946
held that while international law did limit the conduct of navies in their
interactions with non-military (ie merchant craft, fishing boats etc) vessels,
because the British merchantmen were from the beginning of the war armed and captains had been ordered by the Admiralty to if possible ram U-boats, they were not
entitled to the warning provisions of the protocol. Beyond that, with reference to the failure on
the part of German U-boat (submarine) commanders to rescue their shipwrecked
victims, the tribunal observed:
“The evidence further shows that the rescue provisions [of the Protocol] were not carried out and that the defendant [Großadmiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945)] ordered that they not be carried out. The argument of the defense is that the security of the submarine is, as the first rule of the sea, paramount to rescue and that the development of aircraft made rescue impossible. This may be so, but the Protocol is explicit. If the commander cannot rescue, then under its terms he cannot sink a merchant vessel and should allow it to pass harmless before his periscope. These orders, then, prove Doenitz is guilty of a violation of the Protocol.” Had the judgement at that point ended the legal position would have been clear in that having at least tacitly conceded the defense’s point that rescue was no longer practicable in light of the limitations of the submarine and modern technological developments, the use of submarines as commerce destroyers would have been deemed against international law. However Doenitz’s counsel introduced evidence (including affidavits from Allied admirals) that the USN & Royal Navy had from the outbreak of hostilities also practiced the “unrestricted submarine warfare” of which the Germans were being accused and this was not a classic Tu quoque gambit (in international law, a justification of action based on an assertion that the act with which the accused is charged was also committed by the accusing parties. It was from the Latin Tū quoque (translated literally as “thou also” and latterly as “you also”; the translation in the vernacular is something like “you did it too”, thus the legal slang “youtooism” & “whataboutyouism”)). What counsel argued was that in practicing “unrestricted submarine warfare”, all navies were acting in accordance with international law because such law makes sense only if it is cognizant of the prevailing circumstances (ie reality). The IMT’s judgement in the Doenitz case was difficult to read (it was only later it was revealed to have been written by a judge who voted for his acquittal) but what it said was (1) the defendant had violated the protocols which were the rules of international law as they at the time stood but (2) the nature of total war had so changed the reality of war at sea that those protocols were no longer law, rendered obsolete and thus defunct. That was as close as the tribunal came to allowing a tu quoque defense.
Unclassified footage released by the Pentagon of one of dozens of strikes on alleged “narco-terrorist” boats by US Southern Command. The video included a message from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: “TO ALL NARCO-TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN OUT HOMELAND - IF YOU WANT TO STAY ALIVE, STOP TRAFFICKING DRUGS.” As far as is known, in all cases of these strikes, all on board the boats were killed.
So, while
the US military (and for this purpose that includes the Coast Guard, National
Guard etc) have a free hand to attack on the high seas warships of a hostile
combatant, does the doctrine of “unrestricted warfare” extend to civilian
vessels allegedly being used for unlawful activities? Legal scholars have explored this novel
development (something genuinely new and introduced during the second
administration of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025))
and the consensus seems to be sinking manned civilian vessel with missiles as
an instance in peacetime law enforcement is of dubious legality unless strict
conditions are met. The first thing to
consider is whether it’s a matter of (1) peacetime law enforcement in
international waters (something governed by the UNCLOS (United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea)), customary international law and any bilateral
interdiction agreements and thus a criminal matter rather than an act of war or
(2) armed conflict at sea (and thus coming under the laws of naval warfare)
which depends of a “state of armed conflict” existing between sovereign states.
However,
whichever is held to be operative, as a general principle, civilian vessels are
protected from missile attacks and enjoy freedom of navigation (certainly on
the high seas); forces from warships may board, inspect, and arrest, but not
arbitrarily destroy and under the UNCLOS there are explicit provisions under
which a warship can stop a vessel suspected of statelessness or certain crimes but
use of force must be necessary and proportionate. Conceptionally, the notion of “proportionality”
is little different from what is the domestic law of many states concerning
matters such as self-defense: (1) there is no reasonable alternative and (2) force
must not exceed what is needed to achieve a lawful objective. Because these are events happening “on the
water” there are also “graduations” in the use of force which are unique to the
nautical environment including signals and warnings, maneuvering to compel a stop,
warning shots (the classic “shot across the bows”) and disabling fire. When civilian vessels are involved,
historically, only in extremis (presenting a clear & present threat) would lethal
force be deemed appropriate. In other
words, using missiles, without warning, to sink a civilian vessel would, in the
context of law enforcement, be thought “disproportionate” especially if the
crew’s lives are put at serious risk (inherent in missile attacks). That’s all based on the precept that whether
on land or at sea, states are expected to respect the right to life under
international human rights law. Because
the adoption of this technique was so sudden, legal theorists are still working
through the implications but it would appear an extension of the concept of “unrestricted
warfare” beyond military targets.
No comments:
Post a Comment