The Warrior, Military Ethics and Contemporary Warfare by Kaurin Pauline M.; Carrick Don Mr; Connelly James Professor

Author:Kaurin, Pauline M.; Carrick, Don, Mr; Connelly, James, Professor [Неизв.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Published: 2014-11-10T21:00:00+00:00

1 Portions of this chapter were published in my article “With Fear and Trembling: An Ethical Framework for Non-Lethal Weapons,” in Journal of Military Ethics (2010), www.tandfonline.com. Used with permission.

2 Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program (2007), Escalation of Force Options, www.jnlwp.com, p. 20.

3 For one example see, Harold Kennedy, “US Troops find new uses for non-lethal weaponry,” National Defense 86 (580) March 2002, pp. 26–8.

4 http://www.thenation.com/article/166124/brief-history-drones#.

5 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/white-house-presses-for-drone-rule-book.html?pagewanted=all&r=1&.

6 Eric Partin, Its called a weapon for a reason: the need for Non-Lethal Weapons-specific Rules of Engagement (Newport, RI: Naval War College), pp. 8–9.

7 Recall that in JWT there are two major divisions of moral discourse: jus ad bellum (the principles covering the just resort to force—just cause, legitimate authority, public declaration, last resort, proportionality of ends, and reasonable chance of success) and jus in bello (just conduct—including proportionality of means and discrimination). See Chapter 4 for more on discrimination.

8 John Alexander (1999), Future War: Non Lethal Weapons in the Twenty-First Century (New York: St. Martin’s Press), p. 5.

9 Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, www.jnlp.com/Technology.

10 P.W. Singer, Wired for War (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), pp. 116–20.

11 Bradley J. Strawser, “Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles,” in Journal of Military Ethics 9:4, pp. 347–68.

12 The Principle of Discrimination typically includes making distinctions between combatants and non-combatants and only intentionally targeting combatants (non-combatant immunity).

13 The Doctrine of Double Effect (often traced to Thomas Aquinas, argues that one is responsible for what one directly intends and not for what happens as a result of intended actions, even if those effects can be forseen, provided certain conditions are met. See Thomas Aquinas, “Question 64: On Murder”, in The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Gregory M. Reichberg et al. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), pp. 190–91.

14 Just cause requires a just cause (usually self defense/defense of allies or humanitarian intervention) and proportionality (of ends) requires that the value of the ends outweigh the harm than will have to be inflicted (on both sides) to achieve that end.

15 This issue was raised with the aerial campaign in Kosovo in the 1990’s, especially given the concern of flying high enough to avoid getting shot down, but too high to be able to effectively discriminate targets.

16 David Fidler, “Non Lethal Weapons and International Law: Three Perspectives on the Future,” in The Future of Non-Lethal Weapons: Technologies, Operations, Ethics and Law, ed. Nick Lewer (London: Frank Case, 2002), p. 36.

17 John Alexander, Future War: Non Lethal Weapons in the Twenty-First Century (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), p. 24.

18 Discrimination typically has to do with who and what you are targeting, while proportionality has to do with the effects.

19 Studies like the Milgram experiments might suggest that distance, removal in space and presence of authority figures make it more likely that people will inflict harm; on the other hand, because of the high resolution of the images drone operators see and lack of desensitization of being in combat some think that drone operators are more careful and engaged.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.