Proportionality and Necessity

Hurka, Thomas; May, Larry; Crookston, Emily

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840982.008

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…67 It is quite true that not every beneficial effect of a course of action may serve to augment its proportionality, as Thomas Hurka has argued. 68 If we take this principle and apply it to the justice of prosecuting a war at all-ius ad bellum-then, for example, the fact that fighting in 1941-45 lifted the U.S.A. out of the economic depression of the 1930s may not be used to contribute to its justification. This is because economic depression, though an evil, is not (usually) an injustice, and so cannot count as a just cause for embarking on war against a non-culpable people.…”

Section: Ius In Bello: Disproportion As Profligate Attritionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme

Biggar

2018

Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In "just war" thinking, proportionality is a criterion both of going to war and of fighting in it. This article uses the Battle of the Somme-a byword for immorally profligate warfare-to consider how proportionality should be understood. Its reaches six conclusions: first, a very large number of casualties is not in itself disproportionate; second, the proportionality of a particular military operation depends on the moral standing of the larger belligerency to which it belongs; third, aptness in the sense of being a fit response to injustice requires an account of what kinds of injustice warrant the costs of war; fourth, strategy or tactics that are inefficient in the spending of lives are disproportionate; fifth, if a strategist or tactician could have known that his plans were inefficient, and if we judge that he should have known, then the disproportion is culpable; nevertheless, sixth, attrition can be the most efficient way of fighting.

show abstract

Section: Ius In Bello: Disproportion As Profligate Attritionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme

Biggar

2018

Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the nation is trying to prevent terrorist attacks like those of September 11, 2001, then tragic though the result will be, and assuming the nation makes serious efforts to minimize collateral harm, it may kill somewhat more enemy civilians if that is unavoidable in saving a smaller number of its own. 42 Hurka's wish for more precision is precisely the problem here. It is a wish for unambiguous, action-guiding judgements about war, judgements that no longer leave any space for interpretation and disagreement, for doubt and agony: for the recognition of war's tragedy.…”

Section: Fragility I: the Injustice Of Justified Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

The tragedy of justified war

Neu

2013

International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines and critiques the binary structure of contemporary just war thinking. Theorists claim that the waging of war, and the committing of military acts within war, is either just or unjust. This binary distinction should be tempered by the awareness that justified wars are tragic: tragic in the broad sense of inescapably involving moral wronging, but not necessarily tragic in the narrow sense of not having been preventable by the tragic agent himself or herself. Justified war situations that fail to be tragic in the narrow sense are inauthentic. If contemporary just war theorists were to explicitly recognise the tragedy of justified war in the broad sense, as well as the dangers of lacking authenticity, their theory might become less susceptible to abuse by political moralists

show abstract

“…The second (‘traditional’) approach is also the dominant one in international law: it distinguishes between those who are and those who are not engaged in combat, irrespective of the side for which they fight, and allocates the same privileges and liabilities to both. Not only is this view supported in the ‘Orthodox’ view on the morality of the just war, but even among theorists of moral asymmetry, many endorse it as the most suitable framework for the law of war at the present time on grounds of moral pragmatism (Coady, 2008a, p. 164; Hurka, 2008, p. 45; McMahan, 2008, pp. 27–8; 2009, p. 234).…”

Section: Discrimination and The Legal Liability Of Just Combatantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness and Liability in the Just War: Combatants, Non-combatants and Lawful Irregulars

Finlay

2012

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critics of non‐uniformed ‘irregular’ warfare argue that it is unfair both to non‐combatants and to enemy ‘regulars’. I dispute this view by outlining the ‘problem of in bello justice’, which concerns how the leaders of a people forced to fight a just war should distribute risks within their own population. In so far as all are the victims of aggression or unjust occupation, I argue, no citizens on the just side are morally liable to attack. But to benefit from the restraining effects of discrimination, some members must be rendered legally liable. Political leaders must therefore find the most appropriate distribution of the risk of harm: first, by deciding which and how many citizens to select as ‘combatants’; and second, by specifying how far to distance combatants from civilians. I identify four normative considerations that must be taken into account: each possible arrangement must (1) fulfil basic requirements of fairness domestically; then, between equally fair arrangements, leaders ought to determine which offers the most auspicious balance between (2) the goal of survival (of the society and as many of its members as possible) and (3) the goal of winning and, hence, eliminating the injustices that caused the war; finally (4) the arrangement should not be unfair to enemy combatants. On this basis, I argue that in spite of the increased risks it poses to civilians, limited ‘irregular’ warfare might be deployed legitimately against occupiers where using uniforms would render insurgents vulnerable to targeted assassination or arrest prior to actual combat.

show abstract

Proportionality and Necessity

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme

Proportionality: Lessons from the Somme

The tragedy of justified war

Fairness and Liability in the Just War: Combatants, Non-combatants and Lawful Irregulars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About