War and self-defence
Helen Frowe
Abstract
Helen Frowe
Abstract
This chapter explains some of the philosophical issues surrounding the idea of non-combatant immunity in war. In particular, it looks at why the principle of non-combatant immunity permits the collateral killing of non-combatants, but prohibits the intentional killing of non-combatants. Usually, this position is explained by invoking the doctrine of double effect (DDE). The discussion in this chapter proceeds on the assumptions that one can distinguish combatants from non-combatants, and that there is typically something wrong with killing non-combatants that does not extend to the killing of combatants. The use of non-combatants as human shields brings some of the debates concerning how one can apply the principle of non-combatant immunity, into particularly sharp focus. Since the precautionary principle allows combatants to act knowing that there is a substantial risk that they will cause harm to non-combatants, it looks as though it sanctions the reckless harming of non-combatants.
OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This chapter explains some of the philosophical issues surrounding the idea of non-combatant immunity in war. In particular, it looks at why the principle of non-combatant immunity permits the collateral killing of non-combatants, but prohibits the intentional killing of non-combatants. Usually, this position is explained by invoking the doctrine of double effect (DDE). The discussion in this chapter proceeds on the assumptions that one can distinguish combatants from non-combatants, and that there is typically something wrong with killing non-combatants that does not extend to the killing of combatants. The use of non-combatants as human shields brings some of the debates concerning how one can apply the principle of non-combatant immunity, into particularly sharp focus. Since the precautionary principle allows combatants to act knowing that there is a substantial risk that they will cause harm to non-combatants, it looks as though it sanctions the reckless harming of non-combatants.
Key concepts: Political science, History