Response to Five Critics

Yitzhak Benbaji; Daniel Statman

doi:10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

Response to Five Critics

Yitzhak Benbaji, Daniel Statman

Department of Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

In response to our critics, we explain why in spite of the ad bellum breach involved in the first use of force the war agreement is still binding; why the moral symmetry to which War by Agreement subscribes benefits all parties, weak and strong; why contractarianism leaves room the for moral option of not acting within one's rights and refusing to take part in a seemingly unjust war; why contractarianism is superior to rights-consequentialism as a theory of just war; and why contractarianism does not rule out reforms in international law and institutions.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	785-816
Number of pages	32
Journal	Law and Philosophy
Volume	41
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8
State	Published - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Philosophy
Law

Access to Document

10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

Cite this

@article{21e288b068ee475d81f3b99f861c0138,

title = "Response to Five Critics",

abstract = "In response to our critics, we explain why in spite of the ad bellum breach involved in the first use of force the war agreement is still binding; why the moral symmetry to which War by Agreement subscribes benefits all parties, weak and strong; why contractarianism leaves room the for moral option of not acting within one's rights and refusing to take part in a seemingly unjust war; why contractarianism is superior to rights-consequentialism as a theory of just war; and why contractarianism does not rule out reforms in international law and institutions.",

author = "Yitzhak Benbaji and Daniel Statman",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8",

language = "English",

volume = "41",

pages = "785--816",

journal = "Law and Philosophy",

issn = "0167-5249",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to Five Critics

AU - Benbaji, Yitzhak

AU - Statman, Daniel

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - In response to our critics, we explain why in spite of the ad bellum breach involved in the first use of force the war agreement is still binding; why the moral symmetry to which War by Agreement subscribes benefits all parties, weak and strong; why contractarianism leaves room the for moral option of not acting within one's rights and refusing to take part in a seemingly unjust war; why contractarianism is superior to rights-consequentialism as a theory of just war; and why contractarianism does not rule out reforms in international law and institutions.

AB - In response to our critics, we explain why in spite of the ad bellum breach involved in the first use of force the war agreement is still binding; why the moral symmetry to which War by Agreement subscribes benefits all parties, weak and strong; why contractarianism leaves room the for moral option of not acting within one's rights and refusing to take part in a seemingly unjust war; why contractarianism is superior to rights-consequentialism as a theory of just war; and why contractarianism does not rule out reforms in international law and institutions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85140443132&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

DO - 10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85140443132

SN - 0167-5249

VL - 41

SP - 785

EP - 816

JO - Law and Philosophy

JF - Law and Philosophy

IS - 6

ER -

Response to Five Critics

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this