The Liability of Justified Attackers
- 305 Downloads
McMahan argues that justification defeats liability to defensive attack (which would have far-reaching consequences for the ethics of war, in particular for the thesis of the moral equality of combatants). In response, I argue, first, that McMahan’s attempt to burden the contrary claim with counter-intuitive implications fails; second, that McMahan’s own position implies that the innocent civilians do not have a right of self-defense against justified attackers, which neither coheres with his description of the case (the justified bombers infringe the rights of the civilians) nor with his views about rights forfeiture, is unsupported by independent argument, and, in any case, extremely implausible and counter-intuitive; and third, that his interpretation of the insulin case confuses the normative relations between an agent’s justification and non-liability (or lack thereof) on the one hand and permissible or impermissible interference with the agent’s act on the other. Similar confusions, fourth, affect his discussion of liability to compensation.
KeywordsCompensation Liability Justified attackers Justification Jeff McMahan Permissibility Self-defense War
The research presented in this paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. HKU 17610315). I am very grateful for this support. I am also grateful to an anonymous referee for useful comments.
- Erb V (2003) Rechtfertigender Notstand. In: Joecks W, Miebach K (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, vol 1. C. H. Beck, Munich, pp. 1346–1416Google Scholar
- McMahan J (2008b) The Morality of War and the Law of War. In: Rodin D, Shue H (eds) Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 19–43Google Scholar
- Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Sangero B (2006) Self-Defence in Criminal Law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and PortlandGoogle Scholar
- Schmitt MN (2010) The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis. Harvard Nat’l Security J 1:5–44Google Scholar
- Steinhoff U (2012b) The Nature and Scope of Self-Defense under Special Consideration of Killing in War. Filozofski Godišnjak (Philosophical Yearbook) 25:207–234Google Scholar
- Steinhoff U (2015) Justifying Defense Against Non-Responsible Threats and Justified Aggressors: The Liability vs. the Rights-Infringement Account. Philosophia (Online First). doi: 10.1007/s11406-015-9666-7
- Uniacke S (1996) Permissible Killing: The Self-Defence Justification of Homicide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar