The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma

This article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dill, J
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 2015
_version_ 1797101918587191296
author Dill, J
author_facet Dill, J
author_sort Dill, J
collection OXFORD
description This article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction that waging war inevitably causes. International law demands belligerents follow the logic of sufficiency. Contemporary strategic imperatives, to the contrary, put a premium on waging war efficiently. Cross-culturally shared expectations of proper state conduct, however, mean killing in war ought to fit the logic of moral liability. The latter proves entirely impractic able. Hence, a belligerent faces a choice: (i) renounce the right and capacity to use large-scale collective force in order to meet public expectations of morally appropriate state conduct (logic of liability); (ii) defy those expectations as well as international law and follow strategic im peratives (logic of efficiency) and (iii) follow international law (logic of sufficiency), which is inefficient and will be perceived as illegitimate. This is the 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T05:58:40Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:eb6c7796-813d-49d0-b391-45ef4ba01ffc
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T05:58:40Z
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:eb6c7796-813d-49d0-b391-45ef4ba01ffc2022-03-27T11:09:26ZThe 21st-century belligerent’s trilemmaJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:eb6c7796-813d-49d0-b391-45ef4ba01ffcEnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordOxford University Press2015Dill, JThis article introduces three ways in which a state at war can attempt to accommodate the often contradictory demands of military necessity and humanitarianism – three ‘logics’ of waging war. The logics of sufficiency, efficiency and moral liability differently distribute the harm and destruction that waging war inevitably causes. International law demands belligerents follow the logic of sufficiency. Contemporary strategic imperatives, to the contrary, put a premium on waging war efficiently. Cross-culturally shared expectations of proper state conduct, however, mean killing in war ought to fit the logic of moral liability. The latter proves entirely impractic able. Hence, a belligerent faces a choice: (i) renounce the right and capacity to use large-scale collective force in order to meet public expectations of morally appropriate state conduct (logic of liability); (ii) defy those expectations as well as international law and follow strategic im peratives (logic of efficiency) and (iii) follow international law (logic of sufficiency), which is inefficient and will be perceived as illegitimate. This is the 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma.
spellingShingle Dill, J
The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title_full The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title_fullStr The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title_full_unstemmed The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title_short The 21st-century belligerent’s trilemma
title_sort 21st century belligerent s trilemma
work_keys_str_mv AT dillj the21stcenturybelligerentstrilemma
AT dillj 21stcenturybelligerentstrilemma