The Moral Principles for Justification of Anticipatory Self-Defense
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
While the political decision which, under the pretext of anticipatory self-defense, a country tries preemptive strike used to be upheld by increasing probability of war victory, it used to be in an ethical dilemma due to the gap between the necessity for a military solution covered by the probability and the moral justification that, for whatever reason, launching a preemptive strike can not be justified. No authoritative decision-maker within the international community has taken a position on whether anticipatory self-defense is permissible under international law, or it is permissible only under certain conditions. Preemptive and especially preventive war are in a class of hard cases for the traditional philosophy of war. Moral principles for just war theory permit anticipatory self-defense in some rare cases where there is ‘moral certainty’ of an enemy’s future attack and not merely fear of such an attack. Anticipatory self-defense including preemptive strike and preventive war, just as war has been traditionally sustained by teleological ethics system, has been justified in that theory. However in case that preemptive attack or preventive war would produce worse output than input, any just causes for the war can not be embraced. If a war will be determined from teleological standpoint based on consequentialism, the calculation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the cost for war must take precedence. In deontological standpoint view, the justification of war means neither that an individual has to avoid war and to seek peace, nor to defend against invasion, but that it has the obligation to counteract the unjust or the wicked or to fight against them. From the theoretical structure of deontological standpoint, war can be regarded as a punishment or a retribution. Just war theory based on deontological ethics system postulates that war, even though it may be terrible, is not always the worst option. While undesirable outcomes are not enough to legitimize obstructing a war, the sacred obligation and responsibilities to protect their own country as well as preventing atrocities will work on the motive which justifies a war.
Abstract
While the political decision which, under the pretext of anticipatory self-defense, a country tries preemptive strike used to be upheld by increasing probability of war victory, it used to be in an ethical dilemma due to the gap between the necessity for a military solution covered by the probability and the moral justification that, for whatever reason, launching a preemptive strike can not be justified. No authoritative decision-maker within the international community has taken a position on whether anticipatory self-defense is permissible under international law, or it is permissible only under certain conditions. Preemptive and especially preventive war are in a class of hard cases for the traditional philosophy of war. Moral principles for just war theory permit anticipatory self-defense in some rare cases where there is ‘moral certainty’ of an enemy’s future attack and not merely fear of such an attack. Anticipatory self-defense including preemptive strike and preventive war, just as war has been traditionally sustained by teleological ethics system, has been justified in that theory. However in case that preemptive attack or preventive war would produce worse output than input, any just causes for the war can not be embraced. If a war will be determined from teleological standpoint based on consequentialism, the calculation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the cost for war must take precedence. In deontological standpoint view, the justification of war means neither that an individual has to avoid war and to seek peace, nor to defend against invasion, but that it has the obligation to counteract the unjust or the wicked or to fight against them. From the theoretical structure of deontological standpoint, war can be regarded as a punishment or a retribution. Just war theory based on deontological ethics system postulates that war, even though it may be terrible, is not always the worst option. While undesirable outcomes are not enough to legitimize obstructing a war, the sacred obligation and responsibilities to protect their own country as well as preventing atrocities will work on the motive which justifies a war.
참고문헌 (23)
- Brocas, Isabelle, "The Path to Equilibrium in Sequential and Simultaneous Games", Journal of Economic Theory, Medwell Journals (2018)
- Carl von Clausewitz, "On War" (1976), Princeton University Press
- Daalder, I. H.., "Beyond Preemption Force and Legitmacy in a Changing World" (2007), The Brookings Institution
- Dipert, Randall R, "Preventive War and the Epistemological Dimension of the Morality of War", Journal of Military Ethics, 5(1) (2006), Publisher Routledge
- Elshtain, J. B, "Just War Against Terror : The Burden of American Power in A Violent World" (2003), Basic Books
- Gilson, Thomas, "Just War and Preventive Force Doctrines : An Ethical Analysis of Opposites", SPNHA Review, 7(1) (2011)
- Goldsmith, J., "The Limits of International Law" (2005), Oxford University Press
- "The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines : A Reconsideration"[URL]
- "A Time For War?" (2015)[URL]
- Kim Jin-man, "An Inquiry into the Moral Principles for Just WAR THEORY", Robotics & AI Ethics, 1(2), pp.1~8 (2016), J-INSTITUTE
- Kant, Immanuel, "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals" (1990), MacMillan Publishing
- Karnow, S, "Vietnam : A History" (1984), Penguin Books
- Leo Van den hole, "Anticipatory Self-Defence Under International Law", American University International Law Review, 19(1) (2003)
- Lichtenberg, J., "War after September 11" (2003), Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc
- Michael J. Sandel, "Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Reviewed by Jessica Brown", Policy, 26(2) (2010), Farrar, Straus and Giroux
- Murphy, Sean D., "The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense", 50 Villanova Law Review, 50(3) (2005), Villanova Univ. Charles Widser School of Law
- O'Brien, W. V., "The Ethics of War and Nuclear Deterrence" (1985), Wadsworth
- Paul Gilbert, "Proportionality in the Conduct of War", Journal of Military Ethics, 42 (2005)
- "Carnegie Council Fellows Program: Ethics and the Use of Force, The Ethical Limits to Preventive War"[URL]
- Talyor Paul W., "Principles of Ethics : An Introduction" (1975), Dickenson Publishing Co
- Thomas Gilson, "Just War and Preventive Force Doctrines: An Ethical Analysis of Opposites", SPNHA Review, 7(1) (2011)
- Tomes, Robert R., "US Defense Strategy from Vietnam to Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military Innovation and the New American Way of War, 1973~2003" (2007), Routledge
- Walzer, Michael, "Arguing about War" (2004), Yale University Press