• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of military ethics >SHOULD PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES BE EMPLOYED FOR COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS?
【24h】

SHOULD PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES BE EMPLOYED FOR COUNTERINSURGENCY OPERATIONS?

机译：是否应聘请私人保安公司进行反保险操作？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Many of the reasons offered for outsourcing security involve costs and benefits - a consequentialist way of reasoning. Thus, I will explore a consequentialist argument against the use of private security contractors (PSCs) in counterinsurgencies. Discussing the benefits and costs of employing PSCs in these kinds of operations will demonstrate that the hiring of PSCs in many cases (perhaps in most) is consequentially unsound. More precisely, the overall negative consequences of hiring PSCs during counterinsurgencies should preclude their use unless in extreme emergencies. Defenders of the use of PSCs readily point to their financial benefits and expected increase in efficiency as the starting point for their argumentation. On my account, if the benefits really do outweigh the foreseeable and expected costs, then hiring PSCs may, in that case, be a morally viable option. However, I contend that, unless we institute broad contractual control and oversight reform, unless we truly understand the costs and benefits, we should have a standing, prima facie prohibition against employing PSCs in counterinsurgencies.
机译：提供外包安全性的许多原因都涉及成本和收益-一种推理的推理方式。因此，我将探讨一种后果主义的论点，以反对在反保险中使用私人保安承包商（PSC）。讨论在此类操作中使用PSC的收益和成本将证明，在许多情况下（也许在大多数情况下）聘用PSC并不合理。更确切地说，除非在紧急情况下，否则在反保险期间雇用PSC的总体负面后果应排除使用它们。使用PSC的捍卫者很容易指出他们的财务利益和预期效率的提高是他们论证的起点。就我个人而言，如果收益确实超过可预见和预期的成本，那么在这种情况下，雇用PSC可能在道德上是可行的选择。但是，我认为，除非我们进行广泛的合同控制和监督改革，否则除非我们真正了解成本和收益，否则，我们应该从表​​面上初步禁止在反保险中使用PSC。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号