Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Knowing When Not to Fight

By David Luban

Abstract

Should military personnel (“soldiers”) become selective conscientious objectors to an unjust war? This chapter argues, first, that in most cases the fog of war and politics makes it unreasonable to expect soldiers to make fact-intensive judgments about whether the war is just. Second, it argues that even a justwar tribunal, of the sort proposed by Jeff McMahan, will not do the job. It will inevitably lack the legitimacy and fact-finding capacity necessary to reassure soldiers in such a weighty decision. Third, the moral importance of maintaining civilian control of the military means that soldiers should generally obey orders to deploy. Fourth, however, absolute deference to leaders and commanders is morally unacceptable. The chapter defends an intermediate view advanced centuries ago by Cajetan, Suárez, and Vitoria: soldiers must not fight in an unjust war, but only when the injustice is manifest

Topics: selective conscientious objection, civilian control of the military, jus ad bellum, choice under uncertainty, manifest illegality, Jurisprudence, Military, War, and Peace, National Security Law
Publisher: Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW
Year: 2016
OAI identifier: oai:scholarship.law.georgetown.edu:facpub-2621
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://scholarship.law.georget... (external link)
  • http://scholarship.law.georget... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.