Author: Cook Martin L.
Publisher: Routledge Ltd
ISSN: 1502-7570
Source: Journal of Military Ethics, Vol.6, Iss.2, 2007-01, pp. : 138-151
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
This paper critically examines Michael Walzer's famous efforts to integrate a 'supreme emergency' exemption into the ordinary restraints of jus in bello. The author argues that, while Walzer raises valid points about the felt responsibilities of leaders of political communities under extreme pressure, it is a mistake philosophically and prudentially to think of supreme emergency as granting moral permission to violate the jus in bello rules. Instead, the author argues, any violations of ordinary restraints should remain violations. However, by analogy, with exoneration from penalty for violations of criminal law in extreme circumstances, one might imagine political leaders' decisions to violate just war restraints to be (in very rare and extreme circumstances) forgivable but not permissible in advance.
Related content
JUST WAR, NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY, AND THE CONCEPT OF SUPREME EMERGENCY
Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. :
Terrorism, Regime Change, and Just War: Reflections on Michael Walzer
Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, 2007-01 ,pp. :
Liberty, Statehood and Sovereignty: Walzer on Mill on Non-intervention
By Begby Endre
Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 2, Iss. 1, 2003-01 ,pp. :
SUPREME EMERGENCIES AND THE CONTINUUM PROBLEM
Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 11, Iss. 4, 2012-12 ,pp. :