Books > Social sciences > Warfare & defence > Theory of warfare & military science
|
Buy Now
Fighting Hurt - Rule and Exception in Torture and War (Hardcover)
Loot Price: R2,533
Discovery Miles 25 330
|
|
Fighting Hurt - Rule and Exception in Torture and War (Hardcover)
Expected to ship within 10 - 15 working days
|
Some of our most fundamental moral rules are violated by the
practices of torture and war. If one examines the concrete forms
these practices take, can the exceptions to the rules necessary to
either torture or war be justified? Fighting Hurt brings together
key essays by Henry Shue on the issue of torture, and relatedly,
the moral challenges surrounding the initiation and conduct of war,
and features a new introduction outlining the argument of the
essays, putting them into context, and describing how and in what
ways his position has modified over time. The first six chapters
marshal arguments that have been refined over 35 years for the
conclusion that torture can never be justified in any actual
circumstances whatsoever. The practice of torture has nothing
significant in common with the ticking bomb scenario often used in
its defence, and weak U.S. statutes have loop-holes for
psychological torture of the kind now favoured by CIA in the 'war
against terrorism'. The other sixteen chapters maintain that for as
long as wars are in fact fought, it is morally urgent to limit
specific destructive practices that cannot be prohibited. Two
possible exceptions to the UN Charter's prohibition on all but
defensive wars, humanitarian military intervention and preventive
war to eliminate WMD, are evaluated; and one possible exception to
the principle of discrimination, Michael Walzer's 'supreme
emergency', is sharply criticized. Two other fundamental issues
about the rules for the conduct of war receive extensive
controversial treatment. The first is the rules to limit the
bombing of dual-use infrastructure, with a focus on alternative
interpretations of the principle of proportionality that limits
'collateral damage'. The second is the moral status of the laws of
war as embodied in International Humanitarian Law. It is argued
that the current philosophical critique of IHL by Jeff McMahan
focused on individual moral liability to attack is an intellectual
dead-end and that the morally best rules are international laws
that are the same for all fighters. Examining real cases, including
U.S. bombing of Iraq in 1991, the Clinton Administration decision
not to intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, NATO bombing of
Serbia in 1999, and CIA torture after 9/11 and its alternatives,
this book is highly accessible to general readers who are
interested in the ethical status of American political life,
especially foreign policy.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.