Liability and Narrowly Targeted Wars

Targeted killings have traditionally been viewed as a dirty tactic, even within war. However, I argue that just combatants actually have a prima facie duty to use targeted strikes against military and political leadership rather than conventional methods of fighting. This is because the leaders of a...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: Gunasekera, Crystal Allen (Автор)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Загрузка...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Опубликовано: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2016]
В: Ethical theory and moral practice
Год: 2016, Том: 19, Выпуск: 1, Страницы: 209-223
Индексация IxTheo:NCD Политическая этика
VA Философия
Другие ключевые слова:B Killing
B Liability
B Assassination
B War
Online-ссылка: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)
Описание
Итог:Targeted killings have traditionally been viewed as a dirty tactic, even within war. However, I argue that just combatants actually have a prima facie duty to use targeted strikes against military and political leadership rather than conventional methods of fighting. This is because the leaders of a military engaging in aggression are typically responsible for the wrongful harms they threaten, whereas significant numbers of their solders usually will not be. Conventional warfare imposes significant risks on soldiers who are not liable to be killed, violating their rights. Narrowly targeted strikes frequently provide a less-wrongful alternative. Consequently, there is a prima facie duty to conduct such strikes, and to exercise “due care” if engagement with conventional forces becomes necessary.
ISSN:1572-8447
Второстепенные работы:Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s10677-015-9611-7