Biography:

Adam Saxton is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago, focusing on international relations. His research interests are at the intersection of international security and international law, with current projects looking at historic trends in declarations of war and the influence of regional non-intervention pacts in Latin America on U.S. interventions. His broader interests include rhetoric, bureaucracy, and intelligence, with his research often leveraging archival sources to provide insight on foreign policy decision-making. 
 
Before starting the PhD program, Adam was a Research Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), where he worked on projects related to U.S. military force posture and industrial mobilization. He has further internship experience at other think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Center for New American Security (CNAS), where he worked on issues related to technology and national security. His writings have appeared in Lawfare, The National Interest, Breaking Defense, and War on the Rocks.

Project Title: Classifying Conflicts: Legal Labels and the Use of Military Force

Abstract:

Why do states legally frame events in ways that sharply contrast with material facts on the ground? The practice of mislabeling conflicts has persisted for centuries, from the United States’ “police action” in Korea in 1950 to the Quasi-War between the United States and France in 1798. Russia’s recent “special military operation” in Ukraine is only the latest example of this behavior. This dissertation explores the phenomenon of conflict mislabeling, investigating why states choose legal terms that often diverge from the true nature of the conflict. The project sheds light on this strategic manipulation by developing a typology of label types to encompass a range of labels and their relationship to the underlying conflict. The study proposes an initial theory of label choice based on concern over conflict escalation and manipulation of the laws of war. This theory and typology are demonstrated through archival research in historical case studies drawn from the 19th and 20th centuries to assess why certain labels were chosen over others. By bridging gaps in the study of conflict, international law, and rhetoric, this research aims to reveal the complex interplay between the material realities of war and the legal frameworks used to define them.