File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Benbaji on killing in war and 'the war convention'

TitleBenbaji on killing in war and 'the war convention'
Authors
KeywordsPhilosophy
Issue Date2010
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0031-8094
Citation
Philosophical Quarterly, 2010, v. 60 n. 240, p. 616-623 How to Cite?
AbstractYitzhak Benbaji defends the view that soldiers on both the 'just' and the 'unjust' side in a war have the same liberty right to kill one another, because soldiers have 'tacitly accepted' the egalitarian laws of war and thereby waived their moral rights not to be attacked. I argue that soldiers on the 'just' side have not accepted the egalitarian laws of war; even if they had, they would not thereby have waived their moral rights not to be attacked. Moreover, the egalitarian laws of war and 'the war convention' are not fair and mutually beneficial, and so would not be accepted. Benbaji does not come to grips with the problem of the killing of civilians in war: his idea that states could waive the moral rights of their citizens is untenable. © 2010 The Author.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/65610
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.062
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSteinhoff, Uen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T02:51:21Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T02:51:21Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_HK
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophical Quarterly, 2010, v. 60 n. 240, p. 616-623en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0031-8094en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/65610-
dc.description.abstractYitzhak Benbaji defends the view that soldiers on both the 'just' and the 'unjust' side in a war have the same liberty right to kill one another, because soldiers have 'tacitly accepted' the egalitarian laws of war and thereby waived their moral rights not to be attacked. I argue that soldiers on the 'just' side have not accepted the egalitarian laws of war; even if they had, they would not thereby have waived their moral rights not to be attacked. Moreover, the egalitarian laws of war and 'the war convention' are not fair and mutually beneficial, and so would not be accepted. Benbaji does not come to grips with the problem of the killing of civilians in war: his idea that states could waive the moral rights of their citizens is untenable. © 2010 The Author.en_HK
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0031-8094en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofPhilosophical Quarterlyen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com-
dc.subjectPhilosophy-
dc.titleBenbaji on killing in war and 'the war convention'en_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0031-8094&volume=60&issue=240&spage=616&epage=623&date=2010&atitle=Benbaji+on+killing+in+war+and+%27The+War+Convention%27-
dc.identifier.emailSteinhoff, U: ustnhoff@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authoritySteinhoff, U=rp00610en_HK
dc.description.naturepostprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.663.xen_HK
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-77953296342en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros170407-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-77953296342&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume60en_HK
dc.identifier.issue240en_HK
dc.identifier.spage616en_HK
dc.identifier.epage623en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000279534900010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSteinhoff, U=24167075300en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike7281945-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats