Protecting civilians during violent conflict : theoretical and practical issues for the 21st century
Farnham ; Burlington : Ashgate, 2012
p. 17-35 : tabl.
Are there compelling philosophical reasons for overriding a presumption in favour of citizen protection ? Nathanson argues that there are not ; he defends an absolute prohibition of intentional killing of civilians in war. His argument is based on a rule-utilitarian position that seeks to limit overall human damage and to diminish the ill effects of warfare. But there is another dimension to his position - to wit, the very idea that permissions may be granted to kill civilians intentionally (even under highly restrictive criteria) is problematic ; only the strongest possible prohibition could ever stand a chance of preventing civilian deaths, because any loophole in the prohibition is bound to be exploited.
By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more