Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJ. Bellamy, Alexen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:49:38Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:49:38Z
dc.date.issued2008en_US
dc.date.modified2011-08-30T06:20:25Z
dc.identifier.issn15027589en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/15027570801953448en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/40449
dc.description.abstractRecent years have seen a revival of interest in Michael Walzer's doctrine of 'supreme emergency'. Simply put, the doctrine holds that, when a state confronts an opponent who threatens annihilation, it can be morally legitimate to violate one of the cardinal rules of the war convention - the principle of non-combatant immunity. Walzer cites the case of Britain's decision to bomb German cities in 1940 as a case in point. Although the theory of supreme emergency has been scrutinised, the historical case that Walzer refers to has not been looked at in depth. This article seeks to remedy this problem by asking whether the principle actors involved in the decision to bomb German cities understood themselves to be in a supreme emergency. It argues that the British leadership never openly admitted that they were in fact targeting German civilians, and that the principle reason for this was a widespread belief that the British and American publics would not support such a campaign. As a result, throughout the war, the British government publicly maintained the fiction that the devastation of German cities was a collateral product of attacks on its industrial infrastructure. This, in turn, suggests that liberal societies - even those facing imminent destruction - do not tend to support a relaxing of the rules of non-combatant immunity, suggesting that the prohibition on deliberately killing non-combatants may be more embedded than has hitherto been thought.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherTaylor and Francisen_US
dc.publisher.placeNorwayen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom41en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto65en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue1en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Military Ethicsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume7en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchInternational Relationsen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160607en_US
dc.titleThe Ethics of Terror Bombing: Beyond supreme emergencyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2008
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record