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...

Πλήρης περιγραφή

Αποθηκεύτηκε σε:  
Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Κύριος συγγραφέας: Gunasekera, Crystal Allen (Συγγραφέας)
Τύπος μέσου: Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο
Γλώσσα:Αγγλικά
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Φόρτωση...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Έκδοση: Springer Science + Business Media B. V [2016]
Στο/Στη: Ethical theory and moral practice
Έτος: 2016, Τόμος: 19, Τεύχος: 1, Σελίδες: 209-223
Σημειογραφίες IxTheo:NCD Πολιτική Ηθική
VA Φιλοσοφία
Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά:B Killing
B Liability
B Assassination
B War
Διαθέσιμο Online: Volltext (Verlag)
Volltext (doi)
Περιγραφή
Σύνοψη: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
Περιλαμβάνει:Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1007/s10677-015-9611-7