Hardback : £53.37
The dramatic declaration by U.S. President George W. Bush that, in light of the attacks on 9/11, the United States would henceforth be engaging in "preemption" against such enemies as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction forced a wide-open debate about justifiable uses of military force. Opponents saw the declaration as a direct challenge to the consensus, which has formed since the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations, that armed force may
be used only in defense. Supporters responded that in an age of terrorism defense could only mean "preemption." This volume of all-new chapters provides the historical, legal, political, and
philosophical perspective necessary to intelligent participation in the on-going debate, which is likely to last long beyond the war in Iraq. Thorough defenses and critiques of the Bush doctrine are provided by the most authoritative writers on the subject from both sides of the Atlantic. Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? Does the possibility of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction force us to change our
traditional views about what counts as defense? This book provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action. Its engaging debate, accompanied
by an analytic Introduction, focuses probing criticism against the most persuasive proponents of preemptive attack or preventive war, who then respond to these challenges and modify or extend their justifications. Authors of recent pivotal analyses, including historian Marc Trachtenberg, international relations professor Neta Crawford, law professor David Luban, and political philosopher Allen Buchanan, are confronted by other authoritative writers on the nature and justification of war more
broadly, including historian Hew Strachan, international normative theorist Henry Shue, and philosophers David Rodin, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Suzanne Uniacke. The resulting lively and many-sided
exchanges shed historical, legal, political, and philosophical light on a key policy question of our time. Going beyond the simple dichotomies of popular discussion the authors reflect on the nature of all warfare, the arguments for and against it, and the possibilities for the moral to constrain the military and the political in the face of grave threat. This book is a project of the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War.
The dramatic declaration by U.S. President George W. Bush that, in light of the attacks on 9/11, the United States would henceforth be engaging in "preemption" against such enemies as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction forced a wide-open debate about justifiable uses of military force. Opponents saw the declaration as a direct challenge to the consensus, which has formed since the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations, that armed force may
be used only in defense. Supporters responded that in an age of terrorism defense could only mean "preemption." This volume of all-new chapters provides the historical, legal, political, and
philosophical perspective necessary to intelligent participation in the on-going debate, which is likely to last long beyond the war in Iraq. Thorough defenses and critiques of the Bush doctrine are provided by the most authoritative writers on the subject from both sides of the Atlantic. Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? Does the possibility of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction force us to change our
traditional views about what counts as defense? This book provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action. Its engaging debate, accompanied
by an analytic Introduction, focuses probing criticism against the most persuasive proponents of preemptive attack or preventive war, who then respond to these challenges and modify or extend their justifications. Authors of recent pivotal analyses, including historian Marc Trachtenberg, international relations professor Neta Crawford, law professor David Luban, and political philosopher Allen Buchanan, are confronted by other authoritative writers on the nature and justification of war more
broadly, including historian Hew Strachan, international normative theorist Henry Shue, and philosophers David Rodin, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Suzanne Uniacke. The resulting lively and many-sided
exchanges shed historical, legal, political, and philosophical light on a key policy question of our time. Going beyond the simple dichotomies of popular discussion the authors reflect on the nature of all warfare, the arguments for and against it, and the possibilities for the moral to constrain the military and the political in the face of grave threat. This book is a project of the Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War.
Henry Shue and David Rodin: Introduction
1: Hew Strachan: Preemption and Prevention in Historical
Perspective
2: Marc Trachtenberg: Preventive War and U.S. Foreign Policy
3: Suzanne Uniacke: On Getting One's Retaliation in First
4: Neta C. Crawford: The False Promise of Collective Security
Through Preventive War
5: Allen Buchanan: Justifying Preventive War
6: David Rodin: The Problem with Prevention
7: David Luban: Preventive War and Human Rights
8: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong: Preventive War - What Is It Good
For?
9: Henry Shue: What Would A Justified Preventive Military Attack
Look Like?
David Rodin is Research Fellow in Philosophy at the Changing
Character of War Program, University of Oxford, and Senior Research
Fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, the
Australian National University. His research covers a wide range of
topics in moral philosophy including the ethics of war and
conflict, business ethics, and international justice. Henry Shue is
Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies and
was a
Professor of International Relations with the Department of
Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, until
his retirement at the end of 2007. Shue is best-known for his book
on
international distributive justice, Basic Rights, and for
pioneering the sub-field of International Normative Theory, which
he has been teaching as an optional subject in the M.Phil. in
International Relations since 2002.
this volume provides essential interdisciplinary consideration of
the whole range of questions raised by the novel threats and
challenges posed to the international system by nonstate actors
bent on mass attacks and/or threatening strikes of weapons of mass
destruction. Its combination of historical perspective and
philosophical theory, and its examination of the international
system and of various policy options, makes it a deeply informed
contribution to a very important contemporary debate.
*Martin Cook, Ethics & International Affairs*
|
Ask a Question About this Product More... |
|
