Response to Five Critics

Yitzhak Benbaji; Daniel Statman

doi:10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

Response to Five Critics

Yitzhak Benbaji, Daniel Statman^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Faculty of Law

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
Journal	Law and Philosophy
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8
State	Accepted/In press - 2022

Access to Document

10.1007/s10982-022-09464-8

Cite this

@article{8f22798adcac4fd1957b1d06f5d78c58,

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",

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

language = "אנגלית",

journal = "Law and Philosophy",

issn = "0167-5249",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to Five Critics

AU - Benbaji, Yitzhak

AU - Statman, Daniel

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

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 - מאמר

AN - SCOPUS:85140443132

JO - Law and Philosophy

JF - Law and Philosophy

SN - 0167-5249

ER -

Response to Five Critics

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this