12 research outputs found

    Environmental Ethics of War: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and the Natural Environment

    Get PDF
    The conduct of hostilities is very bad for the environment, yet relatively little attention has been focused on environmental military ethics by just war theorists and revisionist philosophers of war. Contemporary ecological concerns pose significant challenges to jus in bello. I begin by briefly surveying existing literature on environmental justice during wartime. While these jus in bello environmental issues have been addressed only sparsely by just war theorists, environmental jus ad bellum has rarely been tackled within JWT or the morality of war. In line with the theme of this special issue, I focus my discussion of war and the natural environment primarily on the jus ad bellum level. I set out with the presumption against the use of force, and its possible exceptions. The principal question raised is whether environmental harm can trigger a new justification for war. Beyond just cause, I consider what might be a proportionate response to “environmental aggression,” or negligent harm to nature. The use of force is clearly justified in response to military attacks, against the natural environment or otherwise. Where harm to nature or its inhabitants are not caused by military aggression, just war theory criteria point in favor of responding via measures short of war. Finally, I suggest that responding by means that are not themselves harmful to nature serves to fulfill the further jus ad bellum criterion of “right intention.

    Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict

    Get PDF

    Ciljano ubijanje dronovima? Stari argumenti, nove tehnologije

    Get PDF
    The question of how to contend with terrorism in keeping with our preexisting moral and legal commitments now challenges Europe as well as Israel and the United States: how do we apply Just War Theory and International Law to asymmetrical warfare, specifically to our counter terrorism measures? What can the classic moral argument in Just and Unjust Wars teach us about contemporary targeted killings with drones? I begin with a defense of targeted killing, arguing for the advantages of pin pointed attacks over any alternative measure available for combatting terrorism. Assuming the legitimacy of killing combatants in wartime, I argue, there is nothing wrong, and in fact much that is right, with targeting particular terrorists selected by name, as long as their assassinations can be reasonably expected to reduce terrorist hostilities rather than increase it. Subsequently, I offer some further thoughts and comments on the use of remotely piloted aircrafts to carry out targeted killings, and address the various sources for discomfort with this practice identified by Michael Walzer and others.Pitanje kako se boriti s terorizmom u skladu s našim postojećim moralnim i zakonskim obvezama sada izaziva Europu, kao i Izrael i Sjedinjene Američke Države: kako primeniti teoriju pravednog rata i međunarodno pravo na asimetrični rat, posebno na naše protivterorističke mere? Šta nas može klasični moralni argument u pravednim i nepravednim ratovima naučiti o savremenim ciljanim ubistvima dronovima? Počinjem odbranom ciljanog ubijanja, raspravljajući o prednostima napada sa tačno određenim ciljem nad bilo kojom alternativnom merom koja je na raspolaganju za borbu protiv terorizma. Pretpostavljajući legitimnost ubijanja boraca u periodima rata, tvrdim da nema ničega lošeg, i zapravo da ima mnogo toga što je dobro, s ciljanjem određenih terorista odabranih po imenu, sve dok se može razumno očekivati da će se njihovim ubistvom smanjiti teroristička neprijateljstva, a ne povećati. Nakon toga, nudim neka dalja razmišljanja i komentare o korišćenju daljinski upravljanih letelica za izvršavanje ciljanih ubistava i bavim se različitim izvorima nelagode s tom praksom koje su identifikovali Majkl Volzer i drugi

    Combatientes : legales e ilegales

    Get PDF
    Los atentados del 11 de septiembre llevaron a muchos estadounidenses a creer que Al-Qaeda había sumido a los EE.UU. en un nuevo tipo de guerra, ya conocida por algunos de sus aliados más cercanos. Los debates posteriores sobre el terrorismo moderno a menudo conllevan una especie de lamento por la desaparición de las guerras “a la vieja usanza”1. En su libro New Terror, New Wars Paul Gilbert sugiere que en las guerras tradicionales, al menos sabíamos dónde se estaban llevando a cabo, quiénes estaban luchando, y por qué se estaba luchando. Lo más significativo es que en el pasado, como nos recuerda Gilbert, el estado de guerra existía entre estados soberanos, mientras que las “nuevas guerras” existe entre un estado, o una combinación de estados, por un lado, y actores no estatales por el otro”2. Como señala George Fletcher, estamos en un “mundo acosado por amenazas no tradicionales de agentes a quienes llamamos ‘terroristas’
    corecore