Suchergebnisse

This Companion provides scholars and graduates, serving and retired military professionals, members of the diplomatic and policy communities concerned with security affairs, and legal professionals who deal with military law and with international law on armed conflicts, with a comprehensive and authoritative state-of-the-art review of current research in the area of military ethics. Topics in this volume reflect both perennial and pressing contemporary issues in the ethics of the use of military force and are written by established professionals and respected commentators.

Denaro, A.: Introduction: the ethical minefield. -S. 1-6. Ashdown, P.: What political circumstances justify military intervention? - S. 7-15. Roberts, A.: The changing form and function of the laws of war. - S. 17-23. Ignatieff, M.: Handcuffing the military? Military judgment, rules of engagement and public scrutiny. - S. 25-32. McCarthy, J. P.: Kosovo: its ethical implications. - S. 33-41. Smith, R.: Building force and unit morale and motivation I. - S. 43-47. Francart, L.: Building force and unit morale and motivation II. - S. 49-59. Mileham, P.: Building the moral component. - S. 61-69. Hartle, A.: Syndicate A discussion. - S. 71-77. Maillet, P.: Syndicate B discussion. - S. 79-87. Rodriguez Mojon, M.: Syndicate C discussion. - S. 89-91. Cornish, P.: Syndicate D discussion. - S. 93-99

First published in 2005. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The article of record may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2015.1068499 ; In this article, I examine the extent to which military officers are morally responsible for the actions of others by virtue of shared membership in various groups. I argue that career military officers share membership in morally relevant groups that include their branch of service, Department of Defense and the entire Executive Branch of Government, and I outline the circumstances under which career officers bear moral culpability for the actions of members of this group. A number of implications arise from these findings. The first and most important is that military officers have an interest in ensuring the moral rectitude of government agents specifically as it pertains to their official capacities. Additionally, military officers have a duty not only to be informed about problematic government policies but also to educate themselves on the pertinent legal jurisprudence or ethical considerations. Finally, the Constitutional Paradigm of Military Ethics may be an insufficient guide for the particular sort of moral dilemma dealt with in this article.