...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of military ethics >Allies in tension: identifying and bridging the rift between r2p and just war
【24h】

Allies in tension: identifying and bridging the rift between r2p and just war

机译：紧张的盟友：确定并弥合r2p和正义战争之间的裂痕

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

It has become almost commonplace to regard the concepts of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and Just War as not only compatible but rather closely connected. Contrary to this position I argue here that some Just War criteria are in significant tension with R2P. This tension results from the fact that Just War only makes war permitted while R2P prescribes an obligation. But R2P and Just War not only are in significant tension, but also suffer from inverted weaknesses: R2P is too demanding while Just War is not demanding enough. Granting that R2P implies a duty to protect, I argue that such a duty is too demanding since it conflicts with the principle of 'ought implies can', whereas Just War is arguably not far-reaching enough as 'duties-talk' does not fit into its structure. I finish by proposing an interpretation of R2P and Just War which not only eliminates the tension but also compensates for these weaknesses.
机译：将“保护责任”（R2P）和“正义战争”的概念不仅兼容而且联系紧密已变得几乎司空见惯。与这个立场相反，我在这里辩称，某些《正义战争》的标准与R2P有着很大的张力。这种紧张关系是由于“正义战争”只允许战争获准，而R2P则规定了义务。但是R2P和Just War不仅处于严重的紧张状态，而且还面临着倒挂的弱点：R2P的要求过高，而Just War的要求却不够。承认R2P意味着保护的义务，我认为这样的义务要求太高，因为它与“应有的可能”原则相抵触，而“正义战争”的影响力可能远远不够，因为“责任之谈”不适合进入其结构。最后，我提出对R2P和《正义战争》的解释，它不仅消除了紧张关系，而且弥补了这些缺点。

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