Just war theory after colonialism and the war on terror

Reexamining non-combatant immunity

Dados Bibliográficos

ID12915852
AutoresGabriel Mares (0000-0002-6643-3787, University of Massachusetts Amherst, autor correspondente)
Ano2020
Volume13
Fascículo3
Páginas483-505
Data de publicação2020-10-07
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoInternational Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1752-9719 • E-ISSN: 1752-9727
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1752971920000482
OpenAlexW3091931279
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas36

I challenge a recent trend in just war theory – that civilians might be complicit with terrorists and lose non-combatant immunity – by reversing the gun sights and asking whether colonizing populations complicit with empire might compromise their non-combatant status. Employing colonial settlers as a thought experiment, I demonstrate the logic of expanded civilian culpability that has been proposed in the wake of the War on Terror would be unacceptable in other scenarios, and that these revisionist proposals are in service of ends incompatible with just war. In the process, I identify an important ambiguity regarding the performativity of non-combatant status, and show how this is used to aggressively expand civilian culpability for violence

Ambiguity · Colonialism · Combatant · Criminology · Culpability · Political science · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Law · Philosophy · Torture, Ethics, and Law · War, Ethics, and Justification