• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of military ethics >SUPREME EMERGENCIES AND THE CONTINUUM PROBLEM
【24h】

SUPREME EMERGENCIES AND THE CONTINUUM PROBLEM

机译：最高紧急状态和连续性问题

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 believe that in 'supreme emergencies' collectives are granted what I elsewhere call 'special permissions', permissions to carry out self-defensive acts which would otherwise be morally forbidden. However, there appears to be a continuum between non-emergency, emergency and supreme-emergency situations, which gives rise to the following problem: If special permissions are granted in supreme emergencies, they should apply, mutatis mutandis, to less extreme cases too. If, to save itself from wholesale massacre, a collective is allowed to kill thousands of noncombatants on the side of the aggressor, then to save itself from a less murderous campaign, a collective should be allowed to kill several hundreds of noncombatants, and so on. But this conclusion seems to undermine the most fundamental ideas of just war theory. The purpose of the paper is to discuss possible solutions to this problem (the 'continuum problem'). I contend that a contractarian view of the war convention offers the most attractive solution, though, at the end of the day, I am not sure that it will work.
机译：许多人认为，在“最高紧急情况”下，集体被授予我在其他地方称为“特别许可”的权利，即进行自卫行为的许可，否则将在道德上被禁止。但是，在非紧急情况，紧急情况和最高紧急情况之间似乎存在连续性，这引起了以下问题：如果在最高紧急情况中授予了特殊许可，则应比照适用于较不极端的情况。如果为了使自己免于大规模屠杀，可以让一个集体在侵略者一方杀死数千名非战斗人员，然后为了使自己免于一次较不凶残的战斗，应该允许一个集体杀死数百名非战斗人员，依此类推。 。但是，这一结论似乎破坏了正义战争理论的最基本观念。本文的目的是讨论该问题（“连续性问题”）的可能解决方案。我认为，合同制人对战争公约的看法提供了最有吸引力的解决方案，尽管到最后，我不确定它是否会奏效。

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