Understanding the Political Defensive Privilege

Emerton, Patrick; Handfield, Toby

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682836.003.0003

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, on the individualist view, it is hard to see how any state short of an ideal Rawlsian liberal democracy would have rights of national defense (Kutz 2014). We have, then, two options: either endorse these radical implications or seek out alternative foundations for familiar rights of national defense (Emerton & Handfield 2014).…”

Section: Jus Ad Bellummentioning

confidence: 99%

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Lazar

2017

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary just war theory is divided into two broad camps: revisionists and traditionalists. Traditionalists seek to provide moral foundations for something close to current international law, and in particular the laws of armed conflict. Although they propose improvements, they do so cautiously. Revisionists argue that international law is at best a pragmatic fiction-it lacks deeper moral foundations. In this article, I present the contemporary history of analytical just war theory, from the origins of contemporary traditionalist just war theory in Michael Walzer's work to the revisionist critique of Walzer and the subsequent revival of traditionalism. I discuss central questions of methodology, as well as consider the morality of resorting to war and the morality of conduct in war. I show that although the revisionists exposed philosophical shortcomings in Walzer's arguments, their radical conclusions should prompt us not to reject the broad contemporary consensus, but instead to seek better arguments to underpin it.

show abstract

Section: Jus Ad Bellummentioning

confidence: 99%

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Lazar

2017

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The State Conduct Element

Kreß

2017

The Crime of Aggression

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanitarian Intervention and the Modern State System

Emerton

Handfield

2015

The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter argues that, because humanitarian intervention typically involves the military of one state attempting to overthrow another state’s government, it gives rise to different moral questions from simple cases of interpersonal defensive violence. State sovereignty not only protects institutions within a society that contribute to the satisfaction of individuals’ interests and that cannot be easily restored once overthrown; it also plays a role in the constitution of those interests, which cannot be assumed to be invariant across different forms of social life. As a result, humanitarian intervention will frequently give rise to incommensurability between the pre-intervention and post-intervention states of affairs. The reasons against violating sovereignty, together with reasons for conservativism in action that arise in circumstances of incommensurable value, mean that the threshold for the moral permissibility of humanitarian intervention is high. The chapter concludes by outlining how humanitarian intervention might be internationalized, making it easier to justify.

show abstract

Understanding the Political Defensive Privilege

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

Just War Theory: Revisionists Versus Traditionalists

The State Conduct Element

Humanitarian Intervention and the Modern State System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About