Suchergebnisse

Rules for wrongdoers : law, morality, war / Arthur Ripstein -- Lecture I : rules for wrongdoers -- Lecture II : combatants and civilians -- The principle of distinction and the role of consent : a view from the law / Oona A. Hathaway -- The problem of perfidy and the failure of forms / Christopher Kutz -- The battle of the lexicons / Jeff McMahan -- Reply -- Arthur Ripstein -- War's distinctive immorality : a reply.

Arthur Ripstein's lectures focus on the two bodies of rules governing war: the ius ad bellum, which regulates resort to armed force, & the ius in bello, which sets forth rules governing the conduct of armed force & applies equally to all parties. Ripstein argues that recognizing both sets of rules as distinctive prohibitions, rather than as permissions, can reconcile the supposed tension between them. In his first lecture, 'Rules for Wrongdoers,' he explains how moral principles governing an activity apply even to those who are not permitted to engage in them. In his second lecture, he develops a parallel account of the distinction between combatants & civilians. The book includes subsequent essays by commentators Oona A. Hathaway, Christopher Kutz, & Jeff McMahan, followed by a response from Ripstein.

On May 31, 2010, in the early hours of the morning, Israeli Defense Forces boarded and occupied a flotilla of six vessels seventy-two nautical miles from the coast of Gaza. The flotilla carried food and other supplies to Gaza, which was under a naval blockade. During the incident, nine passengers were killed and several others wounded. In the aftermath, a key question that emerged was what body of law applied to the incident? Was it subject to human rights law, international humanitarian law, or some mix of the two? This same question has been at the heart of ongoing debates over the counter-terrorism operations of the United States in the wake of September 11, 2001. There was relatively little discussion of the relationship between human rights law and humanitarian law in the U.S. government before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, because the issue did not often arise. On those few occasions that it did arise, the government's position was far from consistent. In 1970, the U.S. government supported U.N. General Assembly resolutions calling for compliance with human rights obligations during armed conflicts. In 1984, however, the United States made clear its view that the Convention Against Torture—a core human rights treaty—was inapplicable during armed conflict. The United States appeared to switch positions yet again when it adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992 without adding a similar disclaimer. [.]