The Dispensable Lives of Soldiers

  • Blum G
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Why are all soldiers fair game in war? This paper challenges the status-based distinction of the laws of war, calling instead for revised targeting doctrines that would place further limits on the killing of enemy soldiers. I argue that the chang- ing nature of wars and militaries casts doubts on the necessity of killing all enemy combatants indiscriminately. I offer two amendments: The fi rst is a reinterpretation of the principle of distinction, suggesting that the status-based classifi cation be complemented by a test of threat. Consequently, combatants who pose no real threat would be spared from direct attack. The second is a reinterpretation of the principle of mili- tary necessity, introducing a least-harmful-means test, under which an alterna- tive of capture or disabling of the enemy would be preferred to killing whenever feasible. I discuss the practical and normative implications of adopting these amend- ments, suggesting possible legal strategies of bringing them about.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Blum, G. (2010). The Dispensable Lives of Soldiers. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(1), 115–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/2.1.115

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free