DSpace Repository

Non-combatant immunity and 'just war'

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Russell, Amy
dc.date.accessioned 2011-07-13T21:37:33Z
dc.date.accessioned 2022-10-27T01:21:47Z
dc.date.available 2011-07-13T21:37:33Z
dc.date.available 2022-10-27T01:21:47Z
dc.date.copyright 2005
dc.date.issued 2005
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/25422
dc.description.abstract Moral philosophers and the international political community alike have traditionally valued the lives of civilians over those of soldiers. The first part of jus in bello, the doctrine which aims to characterise the just conduct of war, states that 'civilians, as non-combatants, must not be attacked or killed', whereas the only requirement concerning the killing of soldiers is that any attack must meet the requirement of proportionality: it must not cause so much harm that the good it does is overridden Quoted from Norman, Richard, Ethics, Killing and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p.119. Similarly, Article 51 of the Geneva Protocols states that 'the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations', and that 'the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack'. Sections 1-3 of Article 51 of the Geneva Protocol (additional to the Conventions of 1949) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I, 8 June 1977). The requirement of proportionality is mentioned only with reference to the protection of civilian life or cultural objects, except in the general statement that 'it is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.' Section 2 of Article 35 of the Geneva Protocol (additional to the Conventions of 1949) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I, 8 June 1977). What counts as 'unnecessary', and therefore illegal, suffering in the context of war is a difficult question. The standard of military necessity, which might be thought a promising candidate, is mentioned in the Conventions only as a justification for harm caused to civilians. The specific protections offered to combatants are limited to wounded, sick or shipwrecked combatants, and prisoners of war - those combatants who most closely resemble civilians. The Protocols do state that all attacks must be limited to 'military objectives', but the definition of these objectives is permissive, to say the least: en_NZ
dc.format pdf en_NZ
dc.language en_NZ
dc.language.iso en_NZ
dc.publisher Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
dc.title Non-combatant immunity and 'just war' en_NZ
dc.type Text en_NZ
vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Research Masters Thesis en_NZ
thesis.degree.discipline Philosophy en_NZ
thesis.degree.grantor Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
thesis.degree.level Masters en_NZ


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account