The myth of national self-defence
The right of national self-defence—though deeply entrenched and of long-standing—is a myth, unsupported by coherent moral reasoning. Were states to possess the extraordinary defensive rights attributed by just war theory and the laws of armed conflict, it would have to be the case that states or pro...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Другие авторы: | |
| Формат: | Book section |
| Язык: | English |
| Опубликовано: |
Oxford University Press
2014
|
| Предметы: |
| _version_ | 1826268554085793792 |
|---|---|
| author | Rodin, D |
| author2 | Fabre, C |
| author_facet | Fabre, C Rodin, D |
| author_sort | Rodin, D |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | The right of national self-defence—though deeply entrenched and of long-standing—is a myth, unsupported by coherent moral reasoning. Were states to possess the extraordinary defensive rights attributed by just war theory and the laws of armed conflict, it would have to be the case that states or proto-state groups possess an unusual form of moral value not shared by other social groups. Through an extended discussion of a corporate takeover example, the chapter shows this not to be the case. In the second part of the chapter a distinction is drawn between ‘genocidal aggression’ which threatens the core rights of all or a majority of a community, and ‘political aggression’ which does not. It is argued that coordinated violent defensive measures are justified in the first case, but not in the second. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:11:28Z |
| format | Book section |
| id | oxford-uuid:3e507860-e761-4f45-aeb2-8b762f111e13 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T21:11:28Z |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:3e507860-e761-4f45-aeb2-8b762f111e132022-03-26T14:24:49ZThe myth of national self-defenceBook sectionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_3248uuid:3e507860-e761-4f45-aeb2-8b762f111e13Political philosophyEnglishFaculty of PhilosophyOxford University Press2014Rodin, DFabre, CLazar, SThe right of national self-defence—though deeply entrenched and of long-standing—is a myth, unsupported by coherent moral reasoning. Were states to possess the extraordinary defensive rights attributed by just war theory and the laws of armed conflict, it would have to be the case that states or proto-state groups possess an unusual form of moral value not shared by other social groups. Through an extended discussion of a corporate takeover example, the chapter shows this not to be the case. In the second part of the chapter a distinction is drawn between ‘genocidal aggression’ which threatens the core rights of all or a majority of a community, and ‘political aggression’ which does not. It is argued that coordinated violent defensive measures are justified in the first case, but not in the second. |
| spellingShingle | Political philosophy Rodin, D The myth of national self-defence |
| title | The myth of national self-defence |
| title_full | The myth of national self-defence |
| title_fullStr | The myth of national self-defence |
| title_full_unstemmed | The myth of national self-defence |
| title_short | The myth of national self-defence |
| title_sort | myth of national self defence |
| topic | Political philosophy |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rodind themythofnationalselfdefence AT rodind mythofnationalselfdefence |