Janina Dill
Datos Biográficos
| ID | 4096981 |
|---|---|
| NOMBRE | Janina Dill |
| NOMBRES | Janina |
| APELLIDO | Dill |
| FIRMA | DILL J |
| AFILIACIONES | University of Oxford |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-5872-5018 |
| VERIFICADO | Sí |
| TOTAL DE OBRAS | 20 |
| TOTAL DE CITAS | 104 |
| TOTAL COMO AUTOR | 20 |
| TOTAL COMO EDITOR | 0 |
| PRIMER AÑO DE PUBLICACIÓN | 2009 |
| AÑO MÁS RECIENTE DE PUBLICACIÓN | 2026 |
| ÍNDICE H | 6 |
A Matter of Principle
U.S. policy elites regularly claim that local populations welcome U.S. military intervention on their territory, which implies a powerful moral justification for war. Does the consent of the “intervened population” affect U.S. public support for military intervention? A large literature shows that U.S. support for war follows cost-benefit calculations. In this view, ordinary Americans are prudent, not principled, about war—specifically, they supp…
Creeds and Contestation
Introduction
The Role of Law in Global Nuclear Politics
International Law in Gaza
On October 7, 2023, Palestinian armed groups, chiefly Hamas's armed wing, breached the fence around the Gaza strip and launched attacks on Israeli territory. Over several hours, Palestinian fighters killed 1,269 people, mostly civilians, engaged in sexual violence and torture, and took 253 hostages. The same day, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “Israel is at war,” and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched air strikes and l…
At Any Cost
How do populations facing external aggression view the costs and benefits of self‐defense? In Western countries, war support has been shown to follow cost–benefit calculations, resembling the moral principle of proportionality. A categorical position, in contrast, means supporting self‐defense regardless of the costs. To evaluate which moral principle populations facing external aggression follow, we conducted a conjoint experiment with 1,160 Ukr…
Threats to state survival as emergencies in international law
Does international law restrict the use of force by states in self-defense even when their survival is threatened? Should it? To answer these questions, I compare international law to domestic law and develop two ideal-types of emergency: in a ‘subject emergency’ law imposes absolute, justiciable limits on self-defense. In a ‘community emergency’ the sovereign, not law, determines what is necessary for the survival of the community and its legal …
Public Opinion and the Nuclear Taboo Across Nations
Introduction to the Symposium on War By Agreement by Yitzhak Benbaji and Daniel Statman
Inconstant Care
The choice between protecting friendly soldiers or foreign civilians is a critical strategic dilemma faced in modern war. Prevailing theories suggest that casualties among both groups depress war support in Western democratic societies. Yet we know little about how ordinary citizens balance force protection and civilian casualty avoidance, and whether public opinion differs across Western democracies. Using survey experiments, we test three micro…
Kettles of Hawks
Recent scholarship has established that a majority of Americans will support the use of nuclear weapons and violate the principle of noncombatant immunity when American lives are on the line. Some scholars contend, however, that these hawkish American attitudes are an outlier and that other Western democratic publics have more fully internalized the nuclear taboo, as well as the prohibition on deliberately killing civilians. To investigate cross-…
Attitudes toward the Use of Force
What informs ordinary citizens' attitudes toward the use of force? Previous research identifies several key concerns in public opinion toward war, but does not directly evaluate the relative importance of these considerations. We articulate three distinct logics of war support—moral, legal, and instrumental—and use an experimental survey with 3,000 U.S. respondents to test how ordinary citizens make trade‐offs among multiple competing imperatives…
Do attackers have a legal duty of care? Limits to the ‘individualization of war’
Does International Humanitarian Law (IHL) impose a duty of care on the attacker? From a moral point of view, should it? This article argues that the legal situation is contestable, and the moral value of a legal duty of care in attack is ambivalent. This is because a duty of care is both a condition for and an obstacle to the ‘individualization of war’. The individualization of war denotes an observable multi-dimensional norm shift in internation…
Distinction, Necessity, and Proportionality
How do civilians react to being harmed in war? Existing studies argue that civilian casualties are strategically costly because civilian populations punish a belligerent who kills civilians and support the latter's opponent. Relying on eighty-seven semi-structured interviews with victims of coalition attacks in Afghanistan, this article shows that moral principles inform civilians’ attitudes toward their own harming. Their attitudes may therefore…
Law and morality at war
Interdisciplinary scholarship is cheating', a colleague recently quipped in a seminar on international humanitarian law. The suspicion behind this view is that scholars who claim to do work that cuts across academic fields simply pluck well-appreciated insights and concepts from one discipline and apply them to a major debate in another. Even work that truly contributes to debates across different fields often manages effectively to speak to only…
The 21st-Century Belligerent's Trilemma
This article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction that waging war inevitably causes. International law demands belligerents follow the logic of sufficiency. Contemporary strategic imperatives, to the co…
The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War
Jeff McMahan's challenge to conventional just-war theory is an attempt to apply to the use of force between states a moral standard whose pertinence to international relations (IR) is decreasingly contestable and the regulation of which international law (IL) is, therefore, under pressure to afford: the preservation of individual rights. This compelling endeavour is at an impasse given the admission of many ethicists that it is currently impossib…
Limiting the Killing in War
This article suggests that the best available normative framework for guiding conduct in war rests on categories that do not echo the terms of an individual rights-based morality, but acknowledge the impossibility of rendering warfare fully morally justified. Avoiding the undue moralization of conduct in war is an imperative for a normative framework that strives to actually give behavioral guidance to combatants, most of whom will inevitably be …
Preparing for Public Life
School sector and educational context seem to make a difference in civic socialization. There is limited knowledge, however, of the mechanisms through which socialization may occur in public and private schools, and the extent to which they have any lasting effect. Does the private school effect on civic socialization persist into young adulthood, and if it does, what explains the effect? Analyzing data from NELS:88 using HLM, the results of this…
Attitudes toward the Use of Force
What informs ordinary citizens' attitudes toward the use of force? Previous research identifies several key concerns in public opinion toward war, but does not directly evaluate the relative importance of these considerations. We articulate three distinct logics of war support—moral, legal, and instrumental—and use an experimental survey with 3,000 U.S. respondents to test how ordinary citizens make trade‐offs among multiple competing imperatives…
Kettles of Hawks
Recent scholarship has established that a majority of Americans will support the use of nuclear weapons and violate the principle of noncombatant immunity when American lives are on the line. Some scholars contend, however, that these hawkish American attitudes are an outlier and that other Western democratic publics have more fully internalized the nuclear taboo, as well as the prohibition on deliberately killing civilians. To investigate cross-…
At Any Cost
How do populations facing external aggression view the costs and benefits of self‐defense? In Western countries, war support has been shown to follow cost–benefit calculations, resembling the moral principle of proportionality. A categorical position, in contrast, means supporting self‐defense regardless of the costs. To evaluate which moral principle populations facing external aggression follow, we conducted a conjoint experiment with 1,160 Ukr…
Preparing for Public Life
School sector and educational context seem to make a difference in civic socialization. There is limited knowledge, however, of the mechanisms through which socialization may occur in public and private schools, and the extent to which they have any lasting effect. Does the private school effect on civic socialization persist into young adulthood, and if it does, what explains the effect? Analyzing data from NELS:88 using HLM, the results of this…
Limiting the Killing in War
This article suggests that the best available normative framework for guiding conduct in war rests on categories that do not echo the terms of an individual rights-based morality, but acknowledge the impossibility of rendering warfare fully morally justified. Avoiding the undue moralization of conduct in war is an imperative for a normative framework that strives to actually give behavioral guidance to combatants, most of whom will inevitably be …
The 21st-Century Belligerent's Trilemma
This article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction that waging war inevitably causes. International law demands belligerents follow the logic of sufficiency. Contemporary strategic imperatives, to the co…
The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Distinction, Necessity, and Proportionality
How do civilians react to being harmed in war? Existing studies argue that civilian casualties are strategically costly because civilian populations punish a belligerent who kills civilians and support the latter's opponent. Relying on eighty-seven semi-structured interviews with victims of coalition attacks in Afghanistan, this article shows that moral principles inform civilians’ attitudes toward their own harming. Their attitudes may therefore…
Inconstant Care
The choice between protecting friendly soldiers or foreign civilians is a critical strategic dilemma faced in modern war. Prevailing theories suggest that casualties among both groups depress war support in Western democratic societies. Yet we know little about how ordinary citizens balance force protection and civilian casualty avoidance, and whether public opinion differs across Western democracies. Using survey experiments, we test three micro…
Do attackers have a legal duty of care? Limits to the ‘individualization of war’
Does International Humanitarian Law (IHL) impose a duty of care on the attacker? From a moral point of view, should it? This article argues that the legal situation is contestable, and the moral value of a legal duty of care in attack is ambivalent. This is because a duty of care is both a condition for and an obstacle to the ‘individualization of war’. The individualization of war denotes an observable multi-dimensional norm shift in internation…
International Law in Gaza
On October 7, 2023, Palestinian armed groups, chiefly Hamas's armed wing, breached the fence around the Gaza strip and launched attacks on Israeli territory. Over several hours, Palestinian fighters killed 1,269 people, mostly civilians, engaged in sexual violence and torture, and took 253 hostages. The same day, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “Israel is at war,” and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched air strikes and l…
Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War
Jeff McMahan's challenge to conventional just-war theory is an attempt to apply to the use of force between states a moral standard whose pertinence to international relations (IR) is decreasingly contestable and the regulation of which international law (IL) is, therefore, under pressure to afford: the preservation of individual rights. This compelling endeavour is at an impasse given the admission of many ethicists that it is currently impossib…
Preparing for Public Life
School sector and educational context seem to make a difference in civic socialization. There is limited knowledge, however, of the mechanisms through which socialization may occur in public and private schools, and the extent to which they have any lasting effect. Does the private school effect on civic socialization persist into young adulthood, and if it does, what explains the effect? Analyzing data from NELS:88 using HLM, the results of this…
Limiting the Killing in War
This article suggests that the best available normative framework for guiding conduct in war rests on categories that do not echo the terms of an individual rights-based morality, but acknowledge the impossibility of rendering warfare fully morally justified. Avoiding the undue moralization of conduct in war is an imperative for a normative framework that strives to actually give behavioral guidance to combatants, most of whom will inevitably be …
Should International Law Ensure the Moral Acceptability of War
Jeff McMahan's challenge to conventional just-war theory is an attempt to apply to the use of force between states a moral standard whose pertinence to international relations (IR) is decreasingly contestable and the regulation of which international law (IL) is, therefore, under pressure to afford: the preservation of individual rights. This compelling endeavour is at an impasse given the admission of many ethicists that it is currently impossib…
The 21st-Century Belligerent's Trilemma
This article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction that waging war inevitably causes. International law demands belligerents follow the logic of sufficiency. Contemporary strategic imperatives, to the co…
The Informal Regulation of Drones and the Formal Legal Regulation of War
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content
Law and morality at war
Interdisciplinary scholarship is cheating', a colleague recently quipped in a seminar on international humanitarian law. The suspicion behind this view is that scholars who claim to do work that cuts across academic fields simply pluck well-appreciated insights and concepts from one discipline and apply them to a major debate in another. Even work that truly contributes to debates across different fields often manages effectively to speak to only…
Do attackers have a legal duty of care? Limits to the ‘individualization of war’
Does International Humanitarian Law (IHL) impose a duty of care on the attacker? From a moral point of view, should it? This article argues that the legal situation is contestable, and the moral value of a legal duty of care in attack is ambivalent. This is because a duty of care is both a condition for and an obstacle to the ‘individualization of war’. The individualization of war denotes an observable multi-dimensional norm shift in internation…
Distinction, Necessity, and Proportionality
How do civilians react to being harmed in war? Existing studies argue that civilian casualties are strategically costly because civilian populations punish a belligerent who kills civilians and support the latter's opponent. Relying on eighty-seven semi-structured interviews with victims of coalition attacks in Afghanistan, this article shows that moral principles inform civilians’ attitudes toward their own harming. Their attitudes may therefore…
Attitudes toward the Use of Force
What informs ordinary citizens' attitudes toward the use of force? Previous research identifies several key concerns in public opinion toward war, but does not directly evaluate the relative importance of these considerations. We articulate three distinct logics of war support—moral, legal, and instrumental—and use an experimental survey with 3,000 U.S. respondents to test how ordinary citizens make trade‐offs among multiple competing imperatives…
Introduction to the Symposium on War By Agreement by Yitzhak Benbaji and Daniel Statman
Inconstant Care
The choice between protecting friendly soldiers or foreign civilians is a critical strategic dilemma faced in modern war. Prevailing theories suggest that casualties among both groups depress war support in Western democratic societies. Yet we know little about how ordinary citizens balance force protection and civilian casualty avoidance, and whether public opinion differs across Western democracies. Using survey experiments, we test three micro…
Kettles of Hawks
Recent scholarship has established that a majority of Americans will support the use of nuclear weapons and violate the principle of noncombatant immunity when American lives are on the line. Some scholars contend, however, that these hawkish American attitudes are an outlier and that other Western democratic publics have more fully internalized the nuclear taboo, as well as the prohibition on deliberately killing civilians. To investigate cross-…
Threats to state survival as emergencies in international law
Does international law restrict the use of force by states in self-defense even when their survival is threatened? Should it? To answer these questions, I compare international law to domestic law and develop two ideal-types of emergency: in a ‘subject emergency’ law imposes absolute, justiciable limits on self-defense. In a ‘community emergency’ the sovereign, not law, determines what is necessary for the survival of the community and its legal …
Public Opinion and the Nuclear Taboo Across Nations
International Law in Gaza
On October 7, 2023, Palestinian armed groups, chiefly Hamas's armed wing, breached the fence around the Gaza strip and launched attacks on Israeli territory. Over several hours, Palestinian fighters killed 1,269 people, mostly civilians, engaged in sexual violence and torture, and took 253 hostages. The same day, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “Israel is at war,” and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched air strikes and l…
At Any Cost
How do populations facing external aggression view the costs and benefits of self‐defense? In Western countries, war support has been shown to follow cost–benefit calculations, resembling the moral principle of proportionality. A categorical position, in contrast, means supporting self‐defense regardless of the costs. To evaluate which moral principle populations facing external aggression follow, we conducted a conjoint experiment with 1,160 Ukr…
Creeds and Contestation
Introduction
The Role of Law in Global Nuclear Politics
A Matter of Principle
U.S. policy elites regularly claim that local populations welcome U.S. military intervention on their territory, which implies a powerful moral justification for war. Does the consent of the “intervened population” affect U.S. public support for military intervention? A large literature shows that U.S. support for war follows cost-benefit calculations. In this view, ordinary Americans are prudent, not principled, about war—specifically, they supp…
Political science (16 obras) · Law (12 obras) · Law (12 obras) · War, Ethics, and Justification (11 obras) · Sociology (10 obras) · Law and economics (7 obras) · Global Peace and Security Dynamics (6 obras) · International law (5 obras) · International Law and Human Rights (5 obras) · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment (5 obras)