Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:13:07.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MORAL AMBIGUITIES UNDERLYING THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT: A PERSPECTIVE FROM MILITARY ETHICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2010

Th.A. van Baarda
Get access

Abstract

The law of armed conflict suffers from an internal ambiguity. The Declaration of St Petersburg (1868) made the ambiguity explicit when it stated that ‘the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity’. The Lieber Code (1863) was less explicit, though it suffered from the same ambiguity. The Code received a lengthy critique from the Confederate Secretary of War who stated bluntly: ‘A military commander under this code may pursue a line of conduct in accordance with the principles of justice, faith and honour, or he may justify conduct correspondent with warfare of the barbarous hordes who overran the Roman Empire, or who, in the Middle Ages, devastated the continent of and menaced the civilisation of Europe’. Which of the two considerations, the Confederate Secretary demanded to know, should prevail: humanity or necessity?

Keywords

Utilitarianismdeontologyethicshumanityproportionality
Type
Articles
Information
Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law , Volume 11 , December 2008 , pp. 3 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Instituut and the Authors 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)