The notion that some means of waging war are mala in se is a confronting one. Surely, any weapon can be used for good or ill? Philosophers often try to justify the category of mala in se by suggesting that some weapons are inherently incapable of being used in accordance with the just war principles of distinction and proportionality. This line of argument faces two obvious objections. First, claims about the limits of particular weapons typically fail to consider the different contexts in which they might be used. For example, anti-personnel mines can be used as defensive measures for fixed installations in marked locations that are fenced off from civilian intrusion. Second, deriving the category of mala in se from the principles of distinction and proportionality makes it redundant. The argument that some weapons cause disproportionate suffering is more persuasive, but it falters if one conducts an honest appraisal of the nature and extent of the suffering caused by weapons that are not held to be mala in se.
The full rejoinder is available to subscribers only. Access the article here.
More in this issue
Fall 2016 (30.3) • Review
Realpolitik: A History by John Bew
Realpolitik is back—or if not back, at least enjoying a day in the sun more fully than it has for several decades. Chastened by ...
Fall 2016 (30.3) • Review
Can Microfinance Work? How to Improve Its Ethical Balance and Effectiveness by Lesley Sherratt
By 2009 the reckless greed of subprime mortgage lenders in the United States had become clear. Housing prices had collapsed by 30 percent or more, and families, ...
Fall 2016 (30.3) • Essay
Climate Contributions and the Paris Agreement: Fairness and Equity in a Bottom-Up Architecture
Ethical questions of fairness, responsibility, and burden-sharing have always been central to the international politics of climate change and efforts to construct an effective intergovernmental ...