Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
1 - 3 av 3
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Parry, Jonathan
    Stockholms universitet, Humanistiska fakulteten, Filosofiska institutionen.
    Civil War and Revolution2015Ingår i: Oxford Handbook of Ethics and War / [ed] Seth Lazar, Helen Frowe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015Kapitel i bok, del av antologi (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    The vast majority of work on the ethics of war focuses on traditional wars between states. This chapter aims to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying. The strategy is largely comparative, assessing whether certain claims often defended in discussions of interstate wars stand up in the context of civil conflicts and whether there are principled moral differences between the two types of case. Firstly, the chapter argues that thinking about intrastate wars may help us make progress on important theoretical debates in recent just war theory. Secondly, it considers whether certain kinds of civil wars are subject to a more demanding standard of just cause, compared to interstate wars of national defence. Finally, it assesses the extent to which having popular support is an independent requirement of permissible war and whether this renders insurgencies harder to justify than wars fought by functioning states.

  • 2.
    Parry, Jonathan
    Stockholms universitet, Humanistiska fakulteten, Filosofiska institutionen.
    Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular Belligerency2015Ingår i: Philosophia (Ramat Gan), ISSN 0048-3893, E-ISSN 1574-9274, Vol. 43, nr 1, s. 175-196Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Since its earliest incarnations, just war theory has included the requirement that war must be initiated and waged by a legitimate authority. However, while recent years have witnessed a remarkable resurgence in interest in just war theory, the authority criterion is largely absent from contemporary discussions. In this paper I aim to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying, by arguing that the authority criterion plays a much more important role within just war theorising than is commonly supposed. As standardly understood, the authority criterion provides a necessary condition for the justification of the resort to war, but has no bearing on the question of permissible conduct in war. In opposition, I argue for an alternative interpretation of the criterion, which attributes to it a fundamental role in assessing this latter question. With this revised interpretation in place, I then demonstrate its advantages by applying it to the practical issue of armed conflicts that are initiated and fought by non-traditional belligerents. While several theorists have recognised that this common feature of modern armed conflict poses a challenge to mainstream just war theory in general-and to the authority criterion in particular-I argue that existing discussions frequently misconstrue the nature of the challenge, since they assume the standard interpretation of the authority requirement and its role within the theory. I then show that the revised interpretation provides a clearer account of both the challenge posed by non-traditional belligerency and the kind of response that it requires.

  • 3.
    Parry, Jonathan
    Stockholms universitet, Humanistiska fakulteten, Filosofiska institutionen.
    Liability, community, and just conduct in war2015Ingår i: Philosophical Studies, ISSN 0031-8116, E-ISSN 1573-0883, Vol. 172, nr 12, s. 3133-3333Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Those of us who are not pacifists face an obvious challenge. Common-sense morality contains a stringent constraint on intentional killing, yet war involves homicide on a grand scale. If wars are to be morally justified, it needs be shown how this conflict can be reconciled. A major fault line running throughout the contemporary just war literature divides two approaches to attempting this reconciliation. On a ‘reductivist’ view, defended most prominently by Jeff McMahan, the conflict is largely illusory, since such killing can be justified by aggregating individuals’ ordinary permissions to use force in self- and other-defence. In opposition, a rival ‘nonreductivist’ approach holds that these considerations are insufficient for the task. One prominent version of non-reductivism grounds the permission to kill in combatants’ membership in certain kinds of group or association. The key claim is that participation in certain morally important relationships can provide an independent source of permission for killing in war. This paper argues that non-reductivism should be rejected. It does so by pushing a dilemma onto non-reductivists: if they are successful in showing that the relevant relationships can generate permissions to kill in war, they must also jettison the most intuitive restrictions on conduct in war—the constraint on intentionally killing morally innocent non-combatants most saliently. Since this conclusion is unacceptable, non-reductivism should be rejected.

1 - 3 av 3
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf