Search results

Rodin replies to his critics (all, 2004) in a symposium on his War and Self-Defense (New York: Oxford U Press, 2003), wherein a call is made to abandon the view that national defense is rooted in the notion of self-defense. It is contended that the objections of Jeff McMahan, David Mapel, & Fernando Teson are not as opposed to Rodin's fundamental ideas as they initially appear. Each of their arguments are seen to be rooted in a national defense conception that substantially deviates from the established perspective in traditional just war theorizing & international law, &, as such, their observations are less a rejection of the text's central tenets than they are an extension of them, which Rodin supports. The critics' revisions to traditional just war theory are examined before addressing how their views of proportionality compare to Rodin's. Why Rodin remains unconvinced by their attempts to revive the reductive & analogical accounts of national defense is then articulated. It is concluded that any redress of the problem of national self-defense will likely require transcending the present paradigm of national defense, with the issue of what constitutes legitimate authority in international relations a critical point in the debate. J. Zendejas

In War and Self-Defense I attempt to generate a dilemma for the just war theory by arguing that the right of national defense cannot be reduced to personal rights of self-defense, nor can it be explained through an analogy with them. Jeff McMahan, David Mapel, and Fernando Tesón doubt this conclusion. In response I argue, first, that their objections are not as opposed to my basic project as they may at first appear. This is because they are premised on a conception of national defense that differs substantially from mainstream just war theory and international law. Second, I argue that McMahan's and Mapel's defense of the reductive argument is unconvincing because (among other things) it is premised on an inadequate view of the norm of proportionality. On the other hand Tesón's defense of the analogical view, based on a conception of the moral value of the just institutions of a legitimate state, cannot account for certain basic features of the international legal and moral order. These include the presumption that even unjust states can possess the right of self-defense against aggression and that it is impermissible for one just state to conquer and rule another just state. Finally I argue that the attempt to bolster the right of national defense through the concept of punishment is inappropriate because it ignores the crucial requirement for proper moral authority in the agent of punishment.

The subject I have been asked to discuss is one which has been of great concern to the nursing profession in the United States for many years, but this interest has been accentuated by our recognition of the vulnerability of every part of the world in modern warfare. The nurse has traditionally been the personification of those who care for the sick, and the helpless. Her very presence gives the patients a feeling of security and comfort. The public, the physicians, and the patients expect nurses to have an important role in national defense. Therefore, nurses must be prepared and willing to carry out their responsibilities effectively.Before telling you what we are planning to do to prepare nurses to function adequately in national defense, it will be necessary to review the milieu in which we work as each country has its own framework in which activities are carried out and, therefore, the pattern of action may not be the same for every country. Further, I recognize that there are countries represented here that have had much more experience with the problems inherent in planning for national defense than we have in our country.