Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  just war theory
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Book review: Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga (eds.), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2017

100%
Kleczkowska A.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2017
|
vol. 37
312-316
EN
Review of a book: Claus Kreß and Stefan Barriga (eds.), The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2017
2
Content available remote

Státník v roli tragického hrdiny? Spravedlivá válka a nejvyšší ohrožení

88%
Velek J.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2013
|
vol. 61
|
issue 4
497-523
EN
The text deals with the concept of the supreme emergency which is one of the most interesting and provocative problems of the theory of just and unjust wars. In the first part an attempt is made to shed light on the status of the concept of the supreme emergency in terms of the standard theory of just war. Then a reconstruction of the key arguments of the concept of the supreme emergency is undertaken according to the conception of M. Walzer. This reconstruction should enable us to understand what the state of supreme emergency actually means, and at the same time to shed light on the background of normative dilemmas which political leaders confront in this situa­tion. In the second part Walzer’s conception of the concept of “dirty hands” is discussed, a conception which offers several possible interpretations of these normative dilemmas. In the third part the author first recapitulates the results of the foregoing discussions in the framework of the standard theory of just war, and he then shows that in contemporary times there exist three basic ways of evaluating the legitimacy of treating intentional threatening behaviour or the murder of innocent civilians as supreme emergency. In the final part an attempt is made to show that morally and legally unjustifiable murder can be only excused in certain exceptional cirmcumstan­ces. This excusing can, however, be justified only on the assumption that, in the framework of the concept of the supreme emergency, a connection is possible between the concept of dirty hands and the concept of civil obedience against the background of some conception of global justice, global consitutionalism and global governance.
3

The Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity – Interpretations, Challenges, Suggestions

88%
Švaňa L.
Human Affairs
|
2015
|
vol. 25
|
issue 4
421-429
EN
The article deals with one of the most problematic principles of just war theory. It looks at the usage of the terms civilian, innocent and non-combatant and suggests how they can be interpreted. The principle of non-combatant immunity remains a real challenge for just war theory in the 21st century as it is designed to protect a specific group of people in times of war. The article considers the problematic issue of targeting non-combatants in war times as well as suggesting how we might better comprehend the problem.
4
Content available remote

Čo nebolo povedané o revizionistickej kritike

75%
Koniar I.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2018
|
vol. 66
|
issue 4
567-587
EN
This article examines Josef Velek’s arguments concerning the controversy between “traditionalists” and “revisionists”. Velek, as a representative of the traditional approach, argues that revisionists call into question the right of national self-defence and reject the thesis of the logical independence of the principles of ius ad bellum and ius in bello, leading to serious consequences. These are, above all, the calling into question the moral equality of combatants, and the immunity of non-combatants. In addition, the revisionists, as a consequence, are deemed unable to formulate practically applicable principles of ius in bello. I hold that the revisionist approach can justify the use of armed force in national self-defence, and that revisionists provide convincing reasons for questioning the thesis that the principles of ius ad bellum and ius in bello are mutually independent. Revisionists reject the traditionalist assumption that killing in war is governed by distinct moral principles, and they offer an alternative way of considering the nature of the just war theory.
DE
Im vorliegenden Artikel wird die Argumentation Josef Veleks im Kontext des Streits zwischen „Traditionalisten“ und „Revisionisten“ untersucht. Velek behauptet als Vertreter des traditionellen Ansatzes, die Revisionisten würden das Recht des Staates auf Selbstverteidigung anzweifeln und die These der logischen Unabhängigkeit der Grundsätze ius ad bellum und ius in bello ablehnen, was schwerwiegende Konsequenzen habe. Insbesondere die Infragestellung der moralischen Gleichheit von Kämpfenden und der Immunität von Nichtkämpfenden, sowie den Umstand, dass die Revisionisten anschließend nicht in der Lage seien, praktisch anwendbare Prinzipien des ius in bello zu formulieren. Ich behaupte, dass der revisionistische Ansatz die Anwendung militärischer Stärke zur Verteidigung des Staates begründen kann und dass die Revisionisten überzeugende Gründe für die Infragestellung der These von der logischen Unabhängigkeit der Grundsätze ius ad bellum und ius in bello bieten. Die Revisionisten lehnen die Voraussetzung ab, dass sich das Töten im Krieg nach eigenartigen moralischen Prinzipien richtet und bieten einen alternativen Denkansatz zur Theorie des gerechten Krieges.
5

Burkean Beauty in the Service of Violence

38%
Emmer C. E.
Dialogue and Universalism
|
2017
|
issue 3
55-64
XX
Examining the images of war displayed on front pages of the New York Times, David Shields makes the case that they ultimately glamorize military conflict. He anchors his case with an excerpt on the delight of the sublime from Edmund Burke’s aesthetic theory in A Philosophical Enquiry. By contrast, this essay considers violence and warfare using not the Burkean sublime, but instead the beautiful in Burke’s aesthetics, and argues that forming identities on the beautiful in the Burkean sense can ultimately shut down dialogue and feed the lust for violence and revenge.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.