Japan's Constitutional Reform Debate and the Potential for Collective Self-Defense

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
James T. Sultenfuss
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Reform Debate

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón ◽  
Bas van der Vossen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self

We introduce general concepts of just war theory and describe different kinds of war: national self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention. After laying down the conditions for the justification of humanitarian intervention, we highlight some of our differences. We conclude with an outline of the international law of use of force and some jurisprudential themes that bear on the current humanitarian intervention debate.

Can Wars Be Fought Justly? The Necessity Condition Put to the Test

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Statman
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
Individual Self ◽  
Widespread View

AbstractAccording to a widespread view, the same constraints that limit the use of otherwise immoral measures in individual self-defense apply to collective self-defense too. I try to show that this view has radical implications at the level of jus in bello, implications which have not been fully appreciated. In particular, if the necessity condition must be satisfied in all cases of killing in war, then most fighting would turn out to be unjust. One way to avoid this result is to adopt a contractualist view of killing in war, a view which interprets the necessity condition in a way that is more permissive with regard to killing combatants in war. At least in this respect, a contractualist view of killing in war has an advantage over other candidates in explaining how wars might be fought justly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document