Suchergebnisse

The Iron Curtain fell over a quarter of a century ago. With it fell also the relatively straightforward Western assumption that war was going to be a bi-polar, symmetrical affair, albeit one with nuclear overtones - an assumption around which the training and education of military officers had hitherto been built. The immediate post Cold War period showed officers wearing a blue, rather than a green helmet, negotiating with opponents whom they ought not to call enemies and keeping the peace in situations where there was no peace to keep. Added to this was the phenomenon of international terrorism, which manifested itself on the strategic, rather than merely the tactical level. Counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate how difficult it is to win the hearts and minds of the local population while subduing the enemy at the same time. With the distinction between what is morally right and wrong becoming ever more blurred, the moral dilemmas of officers and men have begun to multiply and the need to reconsider the basic assumptions and practices of military ethics education in this highly unpredictable world has become ever more urgent. This volume, arising out of a conference held at the Centre for Leadership Development and Civic Education of the German Armed Forces, attempts to address that need. It offers the insights both of officers with combat experience and academics closely familiar with military training, and uniquely bridges the gap between theory and practice in the teaching of military ethics.

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.

Focuses on teaching military ethics. This book includes the Socratic dialogue, decision-making skills, and a chapter containing fictitious moral dilemmas that can be used as exercises. It is aimed at those responsible for training at military training centres as well as at cadets, midshipmen and young officers.

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.