Območno bombardiranje, argument skrajne sile in načelo imunitete civilistov

diplomsko delo

Vesna Zagoršćak (Author), Friderik Klampfer (Mentor)

Abstract

V diplomski nalogi z naslovom Območno bombardiranje, argument skrajne sile in načelo imunitete civilistov je bilo govora o vojaški taktiki območnega bombardiranja, o poskusu zagovora le-tega z Walzerjevim argumentom skrajne sile ter o načelu razlikovanja oz. imunitete civilistov, ki ga je območno bombardiranje vztrajno kršilo. Glavni namen je bil ugotoviti, ali je lahko območno bombardiranje in s tem kršenje načela razlikovanja v kakšnem primeru moralno upravičeno. Celotna tematika etike vojne je postavljena v okvir teorije pravične vojne, znotraj katere pa je za problem moralnega vrednotenja vojaške taktike zaveznikov še najbolj zanimiv sklop pravil jus in bello. Naloga se je osredotočila na primer ustrahovalnega bombardiranja nemških mest v drugi svetovni vojni s strani zaveznic, sploh Velike Britanije. Območno bombardiranje, kršenje načela razlikovanja in načela imunitete civilistov se je poskusilo upravičiti z Walzerjevim argumentom skrajne sile, ki pa ni dal želenega. Velika Britanija se je v prvih letih druge svetovne vojne sicer nahajala v situaciji skrajne sile, ni pa temu več bilo tako po Direktivi. Št. 22. V nadaljevanju so prikazane nejasnosti kategorije skrajne sile, tako glede različnih pristojnosti posameznika in skupnosti do uporabe tega tipa zagovora, kot problem prodržavne pristranskosti in podlage, znotraj katere naj se razumeva skrajno silo. Podrobneje je bilo prikazano načelo razlikovanja in možni načini izjeme od načela (izjeme protizatiranja, ''pretehtanega izjemarstva'' in umazanih rok ter argumenti minimalne odgovornosti, prestavljene odgovornosti in ''argument skupnosti''), ki v večini ne vzdržijo kritike. Diplomska naloga je temeljila na deskriptivni in analitični metodi ter na analizi ključnih pojmov.

Keywords

filozofija;vojna;bombardiranje;pravičnost;skrajna sila;argumenti;razlikovanje;izjeme;civilisti;imuniteta;diplomska dela;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2009
Source:	Maribor
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM FF - Faculty of Arts
Publisher:	[V. Zagoršćak]
UDC:	1(043.2)
COBISS:	17239048
Views:	2904
Downloads:	148
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Aerial bombardment, supreme emergency and the principle of noncombatant immunity
Secondary abstract:	The diploma paper entitled Aerial bombardment, supreme emergency and the principle of noncombatant immunity discusses the military tactics of aerial bombardment, its attempted justification with Walzer's argument of supreme emergency and the principle of distinction and noncombatant immunity, which was constantly breached by regional bombardment. The main task was to establish whether aerial bombardment and the consequent breaching of the principle of distinction can in any case be morally justified. The whole subject of ethics of war is set within the framework of the concept of just war, and the most interesting set of rules that can be used to asses the morality of allies' tactics are the rules of jus in bello. The paper focuses on intimidatory bombardment of German cities during World War II, which was carried out by the Allies, particularly Great Britain. Aerial bombardment, the breach of the principle of distinction and the breach of the principle of noncombatant immunity were unsuccessfully justified with Walzer's argument of extreme force. While Great Britain was, in the fist years of World War II, in a situation which could justify the use of extreme force, this was no longer the case after Directive No. 22 was issued. Next, ambiguities of the category of supreme emergency are presented, both in terms of how the justification of its use differs between individuals and communities, and in terms of countries' partiality. The basis for interpretations of supreme emergency is also discussed. A detailed description of the principle of distinction is provided, along with potential exceptions to the principle (exception of counter-oppression, "calculated exceptions" and dirty hands, arguments from minimum responsibility, argument from shifting responsibility and "collective argument"). All these exceptions are, in most cases, unconvincing. The diploma paper is based on descriptive and analytical methods, along with an analysis of key concepts.
Secondary keywords:	Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Undergraduate thesis
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Filozofska fak., Oddelek za filozofijo
Pages:	84 f.
Keywords (UDC):	philosophy;psychology;filozofija;psihologija;
ID:	18166