Fairness and Liability in the Just War
Combatants, Non-combatants and Lawful Irregulars
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 6343321 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Christopher J Finlay (0000-0003-2308-2793, University of Birmingham, autor correspondente) |
| Ano | 2013 |
| Volume | 61 |
| Fascículo | 1 |
| Páginas | 142-160 |
| Data de publicação | 2013-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Political Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0032-3217 • E-ISSN: 1467-9248 |
| Editora | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00954.x |
| OpenAlex | W1928975256 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 2 |
| Referências citadas | 40 |
Critics of non-uniformed ‘irregular’ warfare argue that it is unfair both to non-combatants and to enemy ‘regulars’. I dispute this view by outlining the ‘problem of in bello justice’, which concerns how the leaders of a people forced to fight a just war should distribute risks within their own population. In so far as all are the victims of aggression or unjust occupation, I argue, no citizens on the just side are morally liable to attack. But to benefit from the restraining effects of discrimination, some members must be rendered legally liable. Political leaders must therefore find the most appropriate distribution of the risk of harm: first, by deciding which and how many citizens to select as ‘combatants’; and second, by specifying how far to distance combatants from civilians. I identify four normative considerations that must be taken into account: each possible arrangement must (1) fulfil basic requirements of fairness domestically; then, between equally fair arrangements, leaders ought to determine which offers the most auspicious balance between (2) the goal of survival (of the society and as many of its members as possible) and (3) the goal of winning and, hence, eliminating the injustices that caused the war; finally (4) the arrangement should not be unfair to enemy combatants. On this basis, I argue that in spite of the increased risks it poses to civilians, limited ‘irregular’ warfare might be deployed legitimately against occupiers where using uniforms would render insurgents vulnerable to targeted assassination or arrest prior to actual combat
Adversary · Computer security · Criminology · Economic Justice · Harm · Law and economics · Liability · Normative · Political science · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Law · Torture, Ethics, and Law · War, Ethics, and Justification
War and Self-Defense
Justice as Fairness
Killing in War
Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy
The Ethics of Killing in War
Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination
Justification and Legitimacy
A Theory of Justice
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Justification and Legitimacy
Just and Unjust Wars
Uniform Exceptions and Rights Violations
The Responsibility Dilemma for Killing in War
The equal application of the laws of war
Legitimacy and Non-State Political Violence
Just Cause for War
Liability and Just Cause
Discourses of difference
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
Collective War and Individualistic Ethics
Gendering Grotius
The Difference Uniforms Make
The Just Distribution of Harm Between Combatants and Noncombatants
Proportionality in the Morality of War
The War Convention and the Moral Division of Labour
John Locke Two Treatises of Government
| Obras citantes distintas | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,22 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2017 - 2020 (4) |
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 2 |