Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Defeating Ignorance – Ius ad Bellum Heuristics for Modern Professional Soldiers.Maciej Marek Zając - 2018 - Diametros 62 (62):1-17.
    Just War Theory debates discussing the principle of the Moral Equality of Combatants involve the notion of Invincible Ignorance; the claim that warfi ghters are morally excused for participating in an unjust war because of their epistemic limitations. Conditions of military deployment may indeed lead to genuinely insurmountable epistemic limitations. In other cases, these may be overcome. This paper provides a preliminary sketch of heuristics designed to allow a combatant to judge whether or not his war is just. It delineates (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Comparative Victimisation and Victimhood during the Second World War: Claims of Moral Equivalence.Michael Schwartz & Debra R. Comer - 2018 - Journal of Military Ethics 17 (2-3):92-107.
    This article considers the implications of jus in bello for jus post bellum by exploring the relevant differences between victims of different sides in World War II: the Jewish Holocaust victims and the German civilians bombed by the Allied air forces. Some assert a moral equivalence between the catastrophes these two groups endured [Appleyard, Bryan. (2017). “I’m a Holocaust Sleuth.” The Weekend Australian Magazine, April 8–9: 27–28]. Although we do not dispute that German civilians suffered as victims of Allied aerial (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Advice and Dissent: 'The Uniform Perspective'.George R. Lucas - 2009 - Journal of Military Ethics 8 (2):141-161.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • David Friedman's Model of Privatized Justice.Ionuţ Sterpan - 2011 - Public Reason 3 (1).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Questioning Combatant’s Privilege in Unjust Wars.Harry van der Linden - 2018 - In Michael Brown & Katy Gray Brown (eds.), Nonviolence: Critiquing Assumptions, Examining Frameworks.
    Following international humanitarian law, soldiers who are authorized by their states to fight wars of aggression have a legal right to kill enemy soldiers, and even enemy civilians, as long as they respect such jus in bello norms as discrimination and proportionality. I criticize a variety of arguments in support of this “combatant’s privilege” of aggressor soldiers that maintain that these soldiers have a moral right to kill or are not culpable for their wrongful killing. I also contest some arguments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Rawlsian Compromises in Peacebuilding: A Rejoinder to Begby.Alejandro Agafonow - 2011 - Public Reason 3 (1).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark