Suchergebnisse

Part of a symposium on David Rodin's War and Self-Defense (New York: Oxford U Press, 2003) challenges five of his objections to the reductive strategy of defending the permissibility of war by appealing to rights of self-defense. Contrary to the idea that if reductive strategy were correct than it would be unnecessary or disproportionate to kill, it is contended that the reductive strategy can in principle justify war in response to lesser aggression. It is argued that killing need not be a disproportionate response to a lesser aggression & the requirement of retreat does not apply when capitulation would involve losses preventable by lethal & proportionate resistance. In acknowledging that the moral basis for killing in war is distinct from the moral basis for individual self-defense, it is demonstrated that the reductive strategy is incompatible with traditional just war theory; however, it is argued that it is just war theory that is false. Rodin's assertion that national defense is in irreconcilable tension with humanitarian intervention is rejected, arguing that the reductive strategy sees no right of self-defense for a state persecuting its citizens, therefore its sovereignty is forfeit. Once it desists from persecuting its citizens, any continued intervention becomes unjustified aggression that then can be defended against. J. Zendejas

"...explores the legality of the attacks against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the jus ad bellum, that component of international law that governs when it is that a State may resort to force as an instrument of national policy"-- iii

The defences available to an agent accused of wrongdoing can be considered as justifications (which render acts lawful) or excuses (which shield the agent from the legal consequences of the wrongful act). This distinction is familiar to many domestic legal systems, and tracks analogous notions in moral philosophy and ordinary language. Nevertheless, it remains contested in some domestic jurisdictions where it is often argued that the distinction is purely theoretical and has no consequences in practice. In international law too the distinction has been fraught with controversy, though there are increasing calls for its recognition. This book is the first to comprehensively and thoroughly examine the distinction and its relevance to the international legal order. Combining an analysis of state practice, and historical, doctrinal and theoretical developments, the book shows that the distinction is not only possible in international law but that it is also one that would have important practical implications.