Suppose someone assaults you. You defend yourself. Your aggressor is not allowed to use further force to 'defend' herself against your acts of self-defence. Only victims get to defend themselves; aggressors do not.
However, under the contemporary law of war - euphemistically called 'international humanitarian law' by international lawyers - aggressors appear to be permitted to carry on using force in exactly the same way as defenders, once the both of them are in a war. How does this make any sense?
Also, why is it that a non-uniformed scientist on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon may not legally be the subject of military attack, while a flat-footed lance corporal playing the triangles in the military band is fair game?
In this interview, Arthur Ripstein offers an astonishingly clear and perspicacious explanation for why these and other of our seemingly incoherent rules about how war should be waged, even if, as we also intuitively recognize, war is barbaric and should never be waged at all.
Arthur Ripstein is the Howard L Beck QC Professor of Law, as well as University Professor at the University of Toronto, teaching in both the philosophy and law faculties. Widely considered 'the most influential contemporary interpreter and exponent of' Kant's political and legal philosophy, Arthur recently published Kant and the Law of War (OUP 2021), which reconceptualize the legal and political duties of states and the norms governing war.
The book is accompanied by two companion volumes, The Public Uses of Coercion and Force: From Constitutionalism to War (OUP 2021), edited by Ester Herlin Karnell and Enzo Rossi, and Rules for Wrongdoers: Law, Morality, War (OUP 2021), edited by Saira Mohamed.
The interview was conducted by Aravind Ganesh in January 2021.
Suppose someone assaults you. You defend yourself. Your aggressor is not allowed to use further force to 'defend' herself against your acts of self-defence. Only victims get to defend themselves; aggressors do not.
However, under the contemporary law of war - euphemistically called 'international humanitarian law' by international lawyers - aggressors appear to be permitted to carry on using force in exactly the same way as defenders, once the both of them are in a war. How does this make any sense?
Also, why is it that a non-uniformed scientist on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon may not legally be the subject of military attack, while a flat-footed lance corporal playing the triangles in the military band is fair game?
In this interview, Arthur Ripstein offers an astonishingly clear and perspicacious explanation for why these and other of our seemingly incoherent rules about how war should be waged, even if, as we also intuitively recognize, war is barbaric and should never be waged at all.
Arthur Ripstein is the Howard L Beck QC Professor of Law, as well as University Professor at the University of Toronto, teaching in both the philosophy and law faculties. Widely considered 'the most influential contemporary interpreter and exponent of' Kant's political and legal philosophy, Arthur recently published Kant and the Law of War (OUP 2021), which reconceptualize the legal and political duties of states and the norms governing war.
The book is accompanied by two companion volumes, The Public Uses of Coercion and Force: From Constitutionalism to War (OUP 2021), edited by Ester Herlin Karnell and Enzo Rossi, and Rules for Wrongdoers: Law, Morality, War (OUP 2021), edited by Saira Mohamed.
The interview was conducted by Aravind Ganesh in January 2021.