Ripstein, Arthur
[VerfasserIn]
;
Hathaway, Oona Anne
[MitwirkendeR];
Kutz, Christopher
[MitwirkendeR];
McMahan, Jeff
[MitwirkendeR];
Mohamed, Saira
[HerausgeberIn]
Anmerkungen:
Also issued in print: 2021. - Includes bibliographical references and index. - Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (viewed on February 18, 2021)
Beschreibung:
Arthur Ripstein's lectures focus on the two bodies of rules governing war: the ius ad bellum, which regulates resort to armed force, & the ius in bello, which sets forth rules governing the conduct of armed force & applies equally to all parties. Ripstein argues that recognizing both sets of rules as distinctive prohibitions, rather than as permissions, can reconcile the supposed tension between them. In his first lecture, 'Rules for Wrongdoers,' he explains how moral principles governing an activity apply even to those who are not permitted to engage in them. In his second lecture, he develops a parallel account of the distinction between combatants & civilians. The book includes subsequent essays by commentators Oona A. Hathaway, Christopher Kutz, & Jeff McMahan, followed by a response from Ripstein.
"Ripstein's lectures, which constitute the central texts of this book, focus on the two bodies of rules governing war: the jus ad bellum, which regulates resort to armed force, and the jus in bello, which sets forth rules governing the conduct of armed force and applies equally to all parties. The lectures argue that both sets of rules constitute prohibitions rather than permissions, and that recognizing them as distinctive prohibitions can reconcile the seeming tension between them. By understanding that the central wrong of war is that war is the condition which force decides, Ripstein contends that the law and morality of war are in fact aligned; the rules governing the conduct of hostilities must apply equally to parties in the right and parties in the wrong in an armed conflict, because the prohibitions outlined in the rules governing war are prohibitions that restrain war. Ripstein's method of analysis and the substantive argument he puts forward offer an opportunity for rigorous critical engagement in subsequent essays by commentators Hathaway, Kutz, and McMahan, followed by a response from Ripstein"--