In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criterion of liability to attack in war is moral responsibility for an objectively unjustified threat of harm’, can meet the challenge of explaining why most combatants on the unjustified side of a war are liable to attack while most civilians (even on the unjustified side) are not. It should be added, however, that in the light of his rejection of the ‘moral equality of combatants’, McMahan would also have to explain why combatants on the justified side of a war are not liable to attack. I will argue here that McMahan does not succeed in meeting these challenges
In his recent book, Killing in War, Jeff McMahan sets out a number of conditions for a person to be ...
This doctoral thesis addresses questions in contemporary just war theory about the relationship betw...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...
In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criteri...
Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-...
In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, ...
This article is concerned with a distinction Jeff McMahan draws between just and justified wars. It ...
Book review of Jeff McMahan, Killing in war. UK: Oxford Unuversity Press, 2009. ISBN 9780199548668.p...
McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the d...
In his recent book Killing in War, McMahan develops a powerful argument for the view that soldiers o...
The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the mor...
doctrine is true by definitional fiat; second, that combatants fighting for an unjust cause may, pac...
achievement of a just cause are morally impermissible and it is wrong to fight in a war that lacks a...
Who is morally liable to be killed in war? The individualist view of liability has been a familiar j...
According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, ...
In his recent book, Killing in War, Jeff McMahan sets out a number of conditions for a person to be ...
This doctoral thesis addresses questions in contemporary just war theory about the relationship betw...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...
In a recent paper, McMahan argues that his ‘Responsibility Account’, according to which ‘the criteri...
Jeff McMahan has argued against the moral equivalence of combatants (MEC) by developing a liability-...
In the tradition of just war theory two assumptions have been taken pretty much for granted: first, ...
This article is concerned with a distinction Jeff McMahan draws between just and justified wars. It ...
Book review of Jeff McMahan, Killing in war. UK: Oxford Unuversity Press, 2009. ISBN 9780199548668.p...
McMahan’s own example of a symmetrical defense case, namely his tactical bomber example, opens the d...
In his recent book Killing in War, McMahan develops a powerful argument for the view that soldiers o...
The work of Jeff McMahan has revitalised discussion of just war theory with its rejection of the mor...
doctrine is true by definitional fiat; second, that combatants fighting for an unjust cause may, pac...
achievement of a just cause are morally impermissible and it is wrong to fight in a war that lacks a...
Who is morally liable to be killed in war? The individualist view of liability has been a familiar j...
According to the dominant position in the just war tradition from Augustine to Anscombe and beyond, ...
In his recent book, Killing in War, Jeff McMahan sets out a number of conditions for a person to be ...
This doctoral thesis addresses questions in contemporary just war theory about the relationship betw...
The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Accordin...