Abstract
Decisions about targeting, since they involve the choice to destroy human lives and property, are inherently ethical decisions. This article reviews the ethical categories that have evolved in the Western tradition’s philosophical and religious traditions. It discusses the ways in which these traditions both generate and on occasions diverge from the other major normative framework in which these decisions are evaluated—the legal tradition that became the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and which is enshrined in International Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
There are occasional exceptions to this. For example, Human Rights Watch has suggested a ban on autonomous weapons systems prior to their development and fielding. Human Rights Watch 2013.
- 2.
Walzer 1977.
- 3.
It is worth noting that this ‘moral equality’ of combatants has come under considerable attack philosophically in recent years, especially by the work of Jeff McMahan and David Rodin. See Rodin 2003 and McMahan 2009. It is beyond the scope of this paper to assess that discussion. In general, they argue that in modern open societies, soldiers are indeed responsible to a degree for assessing the ad bellum justice of the cause, and therefore the soldiers on the unjust side are not morally equal to those fighting on the just side. Regardless of the philosophical merits of this argument, it is difficult to see how one could instrumentalize it as a practical matter without seriously undermining the law of armed conflict.
- 4.
Walzer 1977, p. 155.
- 5.
Cook 2003, pp. 129–150 for a full discussion of the evolution of the theory of air power before World War II.
- 6.
Earlier conflicts had used Forward Air Controllers, of course, but usually by assigning a member of the ground forces that responsibility. Embedding airmen directly with ground units was innovative—as was most of the technology that allowed them to communicate with and indeed see the battlefield from the perspective of all air assets on station.
- 7.
For a dataset on known US drone attacks, see The Bureau for Investigative Journalism at http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/. Accessed 30 April 2014.
- 8.
See Murphy 2009, pp. 79–108.
- 9.
- 10.
This requirement can be subject to unreasonable interpretation. For an excellent discussion of its limits see generally Corn et al. 2013.
References
Cook ML (2003) The moral warrior: ethics and service in the U.S. military. State University of New York Press, Albany
Corn J, Blank L, Jenks C, Jensen E (2013) Belligerent targeting and the invalidity of a least harmful means rule. Int Law Stud 89:536–626
Currier C, Elliott J (2013) The drone war we still know nothing about (26 February 2013) ProPbulica. http://www.propublica.org/article/drone-war-doctrine-we-know-nothing-about. Accessed 1 May 2014
Greenfield D (2013) The case against drone strikes on people who only ‘act’ like terrorists (19 August 2013) The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/the-case-against-drone-strikes-on-people-who-only-act-like-terrorists/278744/. Accessed 1 May 2014
Human Rights Watch (2013) The need for new law to ban fully autonomous weapons. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/13/need-new-law-ban-fully-autonomous-weapons. Accessed 20 Dec 2013
McMahan J (2009) Killing in war. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Murphy J (2009) Afghanistan: hard choices and the future of international law. In: Schmitt MN (ed) The war in Afghanistan: a legal analysis. Naval War Coll Int Law Stud 85:79–108
Rodin D (2003) War and self-defense. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Walzer M (1977) Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cook, M.L. (2016). Ethical Issues in Targeting. In: Ducheine, P., Schmitt, M., Osinga, F. (eds) Targeting: The Challenges of Modern Warfare. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-072-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-072-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-071-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-072-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
