Supervisors info:
1. Βασίλης Βουτσάκης (κυρίως επιβλέπων), Επίκουρος Καθηγητής στον Τομέα Ιστορίας και Θεωρίας του Δικαίου της Νομικής Σχολής Αθηνών
2. Φίλιππος Βασιλόγιαννης, Αναπληρωτής Καθηγητής στον Τομέα Ιστορίας και Θεωρίας του Δικαίου της Νομικής Σχολής Αθηνών
3. Nικόλαος Παπασπύρου Επίκουρος Καθηγητής στον Τομέα Δημοσίου Δικαίου της Νομικής Σχολής Αθηνών
Summary:
The essay addresses the common sense beliefs about the morality of killing in war, which is the prevailing nowadays, presented by Michael Walzer in comparison with Jeff Mcmahan’ s view, called by him as “deep morality”. The last one reject walzer’s endorsement that once a war has begun, all combatants are moral equals, both the fighters for the just defending side and the fighters for the unjust aggressing side. He refutes the doctrine of moral equality using the domestic analogy οf criminal law.
The criterion of one’s ability to be attacked in war, according to classical just war theory, is that one poses a threat to others. Mcmahan shows that the criterion is the moral responsibility for an objectively unjustified threat of harm to innocent people. This mean that the just defender retains the human right not to be harmed while the unjust aggressor forfeits the human right not to be harmed. It is the same for the civilians too. The liability to be attacked is based to the individual responsibility which involves acting and it’s not relied on belonging in a community or part. In Mcmahan’s view, the requirement of discrimination and proportionality, contrary to the walzer’ s classical just war theory, are not separable from and independent of the jus ad bellum norm.
Given all these, in nowadays assymetric war, where the distinction between civilians and combatants is claudy, and the aggressors seem like defenders, the targeted killing bear usually a disturbing resemblance to assassination or extrajudicial execution, and the war, in situations of supreme emergency involves methods of terrorism. The name killing lists is questionable and targending killing demands reassessing . The legal, conventional and political practice faced to moral doctrines, coerce us to obscure decisions as a means to surpass dilemmas. The key to the dilemma between legal, political necessities and the absolute, exceptionlesss moral principles and values is the conceptual and moral deliberation, the “reflective equilibrium” .
Keywords:
targeting killing, war, terrorism, ius in bello, morality of war, personal responsibility,double effect doctrine, conscentious objectors, supreme emergency
