Search results

An eminent philosopher explains why we owe it to future generations to take immediate action on global warmingClimate change is the supreme challenge of our time. Yet despite growing international recognition of the unfolding catastrophe, global carbon emissions continue to rise, hitting an all-time high in 2019. Unless humanity rapidly transitions to renewable energy, it may be too late to stop irreversible ecological damage. In The Pivotal Generation, renowned political philosopher Henry Shue makes an impassioned case for taking immediate, radical action to combat global warming.Shue grounds his argument in a rigorous philosophical analysis of climate change's moral implications. Unlike previous generations, which didn't fully understand the danger of burning carbon, we have the knowledge to comprehend and control rising carbon dioxide levels. And unlike future generations, we still have time to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. This generation has the power, and thus the responsibility, to save the planet. Shirking that responsibility only leaves the next generation with an even heavier burden—one they may find impossible to bear.Written in direct, accessible language, The Pivotal Generation approaches the latest scientific research with a singular moral clarity. It's an urgently needed call to action for anyone concerned about the planet's future

The fruit of twenty years of moral reflection on the emerging greatest challenge to humanity of the 21st century, these far-sighted and influential essays by a pioneering practical philosopher on the tangled questions of justice between nations and justice across generations confronting all attempts at international cooperation in controlling climate change sharply crystallize the central choices and offer constructive directions forward. Arguing that persistentattempts by U.S. negotiators to avoid the fundamental issues of justice at the heart of persistent international disagreement on the terms of a binding multilateral treaty are as morally misguided as they are diplomatically counter-productive, Henry Shue has built a case that efforts to price carbon(through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes) as a mechanism to drive down greenhouse gas emissions by the affluent must, for both ethical and political reasons, be complemented by international transfers that temporarily subsidize the development of non-carbon energy and its dissemination to those trapped in poverty. Our vital escape from climate change rooted in the dominance of the fossil fuel regime ought not, and in fact need not, come at the price of de-railing the escape of the world's poorestfrom poverty rooted in lack of affordable energy that does not undermine the climate. The momentum of changes in the planetary climate system and the political inertia of energy regimes mean that future generations, like the poorest of the present, are vulnerable to our decisions, and they haverights not to be left helpless by those of us with the power instead to leave them hope.

Some of our most fundamental moral rules are violated by the practices of torture and war. This collection of Shue's work on the matter explores two possible exceptions to the prohibition on all but defensive wars, humanitarian military intervention and preventive war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, are evaluated here; and one possible exception to the principle of discrimination, Michael Walzer's 'supreme emergency', is sharply criticized. Two other fundamental issues about the rules for the conduct of war receive extensive controversial treatment.

The fruit of twenty years of moral reflection on the emerging greatest challenge to humanity of the 21st century, these far-sighted and influential essays by a pioneering practical philosopher on the tangled questions of justice between nations and justice across generations confronting all attempts at international cooperation in controlling climate change sharply crystallize the central choices and offer constructive directions forward. Arguing that persistent attempts by U.S._x000D_ negotiators to avoid the fundamental issues of justice at the heart of persistent international disagreement on the terms of a binding multilateral treaty are as morally misguided as they are diplomatically counter-productive, Henry Shue has built a case that efforts to price carbon (through_x000D_ cap-and-trade or carbon taxes) as a mechanism to drive down greenhouse gas emissions by the affluent must, for both ethical and political reasons, be complemented by international transfers that temporarily subsidize the development of non-carbon energy and its dissemination to those trapped in poverty. Our vital escape from climate change rooted in the dominance of the fossil fuel regime ought not, and in fact need not, come at the price of de-railing the escape of the world's poorest from_x000D_ poverty rooted in lack of affordable energy that does not undermine the climate. The momentum of changes in the planetary climate system and the political inertia of energy regimes mean that future generations, like the poorest of the present, are vulnerable to our decisions, and they have rights not_x000D_ to be left helpless by those of us with the power instead to leave them hope.

This important collection of essays brings together the work of prominent philosophers, political scientists, policy analysts, and defence consultants. It takes as its point of departure two central tendencies in current nuclear strategy: mutual assured destruction (MAD) and nuclear utilization target selections (NUTS). The essays examine and assess the arguments for these and other positions on the spectrum of policy options, and elaborate the implications of this analysis for strategic policy and for the further pursuit of research into SDI, and other matters

Climate justice requires sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change and its resolution equitably and fairly. This book brings together economic and philosophical discourse on climate justice in order to support public policy dialogue on the topic.

Historical and theoretical perspectives -- Strategic bombardment: expectation, theory, and practice in the early 20th century / Tami Davis Biddle -- Bombing civilians after World War II: the persistence of norms against targeting civilians in the Korean war / Sahr Conway-Lanz -- Targeting civilians and US strategic bombing norms: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose? / Neta C. Crawford -- The law applies, but which law? a consumer guide to the laws of war / Charles Garraway -- Interpreting, criticizing, and creating legal restrictions -- Clever or clueless? observations about bombing norm debates / Charles J. Dunlap, Jr -- The American way of bombing and international law: two logics of warfare in tension / Janina Dill -- Force protection, military advantage, and constant care for civilians: the 1991 bombing of Iraq / Henry Shue -- Civilian deaths and American power: three lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan / Richard W. Miller -- Constructing new norms -- Proportionality and restraint on the use of force: the role of nongovernmental organizations / Margarita H. Petrova -- Toward an anthropology of drones: remaking space, time, and valor in combat / Hugh Gusterson -- What's wrong with drones? the battlefield in international humanitarian law / Klem Ryan -- Banning autonomous killing: the legal and ethical requirement that humans make near-time lethal decisions / Mary Ellen O'Connell

Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? Does the possibility of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction force us to change our traditional views about what counts as defense? This book provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action. Its engaging debate, accompanied by an analytic Introduction, focuses probing criticism of the most persuasive proponents of preemptive attack or preventive war, who then respond to these challenges and modify or extend their justifications ... (Quelle: Text Verlagseinband / Verlag)

Can a soldier be held responsible for fighting in a war that is illegal or unjust? The chapters in the book both challenge and defend many deeply held assumptions: about the liability of soldiers for crimes of aggression, about the nature and justifiability of terrorism, about the relationship between law and morality. - ;Can a soldier be held responsible for fighting in a war that is illegal or unjust? This is the question at the heart of a new debate that has the potential to profoundly change our understanding of the moral and legal status of warriors, wars, and indeed of moral agency itself. The debate pits a widely shared and legally entrenched principle of war - that combatants have equal rights and equal responsibilities irrespective of whether they are fighting in a war that just or unjust -against a set of striking new arguments. These arguments challenge the idea that there is a separation between the rules governing the justice of going to war (the jus ad bellum) and the rules governing what combatants can do in war (the jus in bello). If ad bellum and in bello rules are connected inthe way these new arguments suggest, then many aspects of just war theory and laws of war would have to be rethought and perhaps reformed. This book contains eleven original and closely argued essays by leading figures in the ethics and laws of war and provides an authoritative treatment of this important new debate. The essays both challenge and defend many deeply held convictions: about the liability of soldiers for crimes of aggression, about the nature and justifiability of terrorism, about the relationship between law and morality, the relationship between soldiers and states, and the relationship between the ethics of warand the ethics of ordinary life. This book is a project of the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War.

Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? This volume of new, specially commissioned chapters provides the most definitive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action