Moral equality of combatants: Difference between revisions
added Category:Just war theory using HotCat |
+ |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Встреча подразделений ВС РФ и ЛНР в Новоайдаре 007.png|thumb|upright=1.2|The moral equality of combatants has been cited in relation to the [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]<ref>{{cite news |last1=Weinberg |first1=Justin |title=Philosophers On The Russian Attack On Ukraine |url=https://dailynous.com/2022/03/02/philosophers-on-the-russian-attack-on-ukraine/ |access-date=17 March 2022 |work=Daily Nous |date=2 March 2022}}</ref> |
[[File:Встреча подразделений ВС РФ и ЛНР в Новоайдаре 007.png|thumb|upright=1.2|The moral equality of combatants has been cited in relation to the [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]. Opponents of MEC argue that soldiers who fight a [[war of aggression]], such as these Russian soldiers in Ukraine, are in the wrong.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Weinberg |first1=Justin |title=Philosophers On The Russian Attack On Ukraine |url=https://dailynous.com/2022/03/02/philosophers-on-the-russian-attack-on-ukraine/ |access-date=17 March 2022 |work=Daily Nous |date=2 March 2022}}</ref>]] |
||
'''Moral equality of combatants''' (MEC) or '''moral equality of soldiers''' is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit [[war crimes]], regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. MEC is a key element underpinning [[international humanitarian law]] (IHL)—which |
'''Moral equality of combatants''' (MEC) or '''moral equality of soldiers''' is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit [[war crimes]], regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. MEC is a key element underpinning [[international humanitarian law]] (IHL)—which [[belligerent equality|applies the rules of war equally to both sides]]—and traditional [[just war theory]].{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=259}} According to philosopher [[Henrik Syse]], MEC presents a serious quandary because "it makes as little practical sense to ascribe blame to individual soldiers for the cause of the war in which they fight as it makes theoretical sense to hold the fighters on the two sides to be fully morally equal".{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=260}} International law scholar Eliav Lieblich states that "the moral responsibility of soldiers that participate in unjust wars" is "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war".<ref name=Lieblich/> |
||
==Traditional view== |
|||
MEC as a formal doctrine was articulated in ''[[Just and Unjust Wars]]'' (1977) by [[Michael Walzer]], although earlier just war theorists such as [[Augustine]] and [[Aquinas]] argued that soldiers should obey their leaders when fighting a war. There is dispute over whether early modern just war theory promoted MEC.{{sfn|Syse|2015|pp=261–262}} A full crystallization of MEC could only occur after both ''[[jus ad bellum]]'' and ''[[jus in bello]]'' were developed.{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=263}} Proponents of MEC argue that individual soldiers are not well-placed to determine the justness of a war.{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=264}} Walzer, for example, argues that the entire responsibility for an unjust war is borne by military and civilian leaders who choose to go to war, rather than individual soldiers who have little say in the matter.{{sfn|Bazargan|2013}} |
|||
| ⚫ | In 2006, philosopher [[Jeff McMahan (philosopher)|Jeff McMahan]] began to contest MEC, arguing that soldiers fighting an unjust or [[war of aggression|illegal war]] are not morally equal to those fighting in self-defense. |
||
==Revisionist challenge== |
|||
| ⚫ | There is no equivalent to MEC in peacetime circumstances.{{sfn|Barry|Christie|2018|p=340}} In 2006, philosopher [[Jeff McMahan (philosopher)|Jeff McMahan]] began to contest MEC, arguing that soldiers fighting an unjust or [[war of aggression|illegal war]] are not morally equal to those fighting in self-defense.{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=260}} Although they do not favor criminal prosecution of individual soldiers who fight in an unjust war,{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=264}} they argue that individual soldiers should assess the legality or morality of the war they are asked to fight, and [[selective conscientious objection|refuse if it is an illegal or unjust war]].{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=261}} According to the revisionist view, a solider or officer who knows or strongly suspects that their side is fighting an unjust war has a moral obligation not to fight it, unless this would entail capital punishment or some other extreme consequence.{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=265}} |
||
Opponents of MEC—sometimes grouped under the label of [[revisionist just war theory]]—nevertheless generally support the [[belligerent equality]] principle of IHL on pragmatic grounds.{{sfn|Syse|2015|p=260}} In his 2018 book ''The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier'', law scholar [[Tom Dannenbaum]] was one of the first to propose legal reforms based on rejection on MEC. Dannenbaum argued that soldiers who refuse to fight illegal wars should be allowed selective conscientious objection or and be accepted as refugees if they have to flee their country. He also argued that soldiers fighting against a war of aggression should be recognized as victims in postwar reparations processes.<ref name=Lieblich>{{cite journal |last1=Lieblich |first1=Eliav |title=The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier. By Tom Dannenbaum. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. xxvii, 352. Index. |journal=American Journal of International Law |date=2019 |volume=113 |issue=3 |pages=664–669 |doi=10.1017/ajil.2019.21 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/crime-of-aggression-humanity-and-the-soldier-by-tom-dannenbaum-new-york-cambridge-university-press-2018-pp-xxvii-352-index/A6305E4282C498829883EF1560E66F63 |language=en |issn=0002-9300}}</ref> |
|||
==Public opinion== |
|||
A 2019 study found that the majority of Americans endorse the revisionist view on MEC and many are even willing to allow a war crime against noncombatants to go unpunished when committed by soldiers who are fighting a just war.{{sfn|Sagan|Valentino|2019|p=411}} Responding to the study, Walzer argued that differently phrased questions might have led to different results.{{sfn|Walzer|2019|p=445}} |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
==Sources== |
==Sources== |
||
*{{cite book |last1=Barry |first1=Christian |last2=Christie |first2=Lars |chapter=The Moral Equality of Combatants |title=The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War |date=2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-994341-8 |language=en}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Bazargan |first1=Saba |chapter=Moral Equality of Combatants |title=[[The International Encyclopedia of Ethics]] |date=2013 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |doi=10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee343}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |last1=Sagan |first1=Scott D. |last2=Valentino |first2=Benjamin A. |title=Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants |journal=Ethics & International Affairs |date=2019 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=411–444 |doi=10.1017/S0892679419000431}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Syse |first1=Henrik |title=The Ashgate Research Companion to Military Ethics |date=2015 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-315-61324-6 |chapter=The Moral Equality of Combatants}} |
*{{cite book |last1=Syse |first1=Henrik |title=The Ashgate Research Companion to Military Ethics |date=2015 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-315-61324-6 |chapter=The Moral Equality of Combatants}} |
||
*{{cite journal |last1=Walzer |first1=Michael |title=On Reciprocity and Practical Morality: A Response to Sagan and Valentino |journal=Ethics & International Affairs |date=2019 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=445–450 |doi=10.1017/S0892679419000406}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
==Further reading== |
||
*{{cite book |last1=Rodin |first1=David |last2=Shue |first2=Henry |title=Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers |date=2010 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-161562-7 |language=en}} |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Skerker |first1=Michael |title=The Moral Status of Combatants: A New Theory of Just War |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-28404-5}} |
*{{cite book |last1=Skerker |first1=Michael |title=The Moral Status of Combatants: A New Theory of Just War |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-28404-5}} |
||
Revision as of 18:23, 17 March 2022
Moral equality of combatants (MEC) or moral equality of soldiers is the principle that soldiers fighting on both sides of a war are equally honorable, unless they commit war crimes, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause. MEC is a key element underpinning international humanitarian law (IHL)—which applies the rules of war equally to both sides—and traditional just war theory.[2] According to philosopher Henrik Syse, MEC presents a serious quandary because "it makes as little practical sense to ascribe blame to individual soldiers for the cause of the war in which they fight as it makes theoretical sense to hold the fighters on the two sides to be fully morally equal".[3] International law scholar Eliav Lieblich states that "the moral responsibility of soldiers that participate in unjust wars" is "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war".[4]
Traditional view
MEC as a formal doctrine was articulated in Just and Unjust Wars (1977) by Michael Walzer, although earlier just war theorists such as Augustine and Aquinas argued that soldiers should obey their leaders when fighting a war. There is dispute over whether early modern just war theory promoted MEC.[5] A full crystallization of MEC could only occur after both jus ad bellum and jus in bello were developed.[6] Proponents of MEC argue that individual soldiers are not well-placed to determine the justness of a war.[7] Walzer, for example, argues that the entire responsibility for an unjust war is borne by military and civilian leaders who choose to go to war, rather than individual soldiers who have little say in the matter.[8]
Revisionist challenge
There is no equivalent to MEC in peacetime circumstances.[9] In 2006, philosopher Jeff McMahan began to contest MEC, arguing that soldiers fighting an unjust or illegal war are not morally equal to those fighting in self-defense.[3] Although they do not favor criminal prosecution of individual soldiers who fight in an unjust war,[7] they argue that individual soldiers should assess the legality or morality of the war they are asked to fight, and refuse if it is an illegal or unjust war.[10] According to the revisionist view, a solider or officer who knows or strongly suspects that their side is fighting an unjust war has a moral obligation not to fight it, unless this would entail capital punishment or some other extreme consequence.[11]
Opponents of MEC—sometimes grouped under the label of revisionist just war theory—nevertheless generally support the belligerent equality principle of IHL on pragmatic grounds.[3] In his 2018 book The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier, law scholar Tom Dannenbaum was one of the first to propose legal reforms based on rejection on MEC. Dannenbaum argued that soldiers who refuse to fight illegal wars should be allowed selective conscientious objection or and be accepted as refugees if they have to flee their country. He also argued that soldiers fighting against a war of aggression should be recognized as victims in postwar reparations processes.[4]
Public opinion
A 2019 study found that the majority of Americans endorse the revisionist view on MEC and many are even willing to allow a war crime against noncombatants to go unpunished when committed by soldiers who are fighting a just war.[12] Responding to the study, Walzer argued that differently phrased questions might have led to different results.[13]
References
- ^ Weinberg, Justin (2 March 2022). "Philosophers On The Russian Attack On Ukraine". Daily Nous. Retrieved 17 March 2022.
- ^ Syse 2015, p. 259.
- ^ a b c Syse 2015, p. 260.
- ^ a b Lieblich, Eliav (2019). "The Crime of Aggression, Humanity, and the Soldier. By Tom Dannenbaum. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. xxvii, 352. Index". American Journal of International Law. 113 (3): 664–669. doi:10.1017/ajil.2019.21. ISSN 0002-9300.
- ^ Syse 2015, pp. 261–262.
- ^ Syse 2015, p. 263.
- ^ a b Syse 2015, p. 264.
- ^ Bazargan 2013.
- ^ Barry & Christie 2018, p. 340.
- ^ Syse 2015, p. 261.
- ^ Syse 2015, p. 265.
- ^ Sagan & Valentino 2019, p. 411.
- ^ Walzer 2019, p. 445.
Sources
- Barry, Christian; Christie, Lars (2018). "The Moral Equality of Combatants". The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-994341-8.
- Bazargan, Saba (2013). "Moral Equality of Combatants". The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee343.
- Sagan, Scott D.; Valentino, Benjamin A. (2019). "Just War and Unjust Soldiers: American Public Opinion on the Moral Equality of Combatants". Ethics & International Affairs. 33 (4): 411–444. doi:10.1017/S0892679419000431.
- Syse, Henrik (2015). "The Moral Equality of Combatants". The Ashgate Research Companion to Military Ethics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-61324-6.
- Walzer, Michael (2019). "On Reciprocity and Practical Morality: A Response to Sagan and Valentino". Ethics & International Affairs. 33 (4): 445–450. doi:10.1017/S0892679419000406.
Further reading
- Rodin, David; Shue, Henry (2010). Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-161562-7.
- Skerker, Michael (2020). The Moral Status of Combatants: A New Theory of Just War. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-28404-5.