The Principle of Distinction

Kasher, Asa

doi:10.1080/15027570701436841

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is the terrorist group that has chosen to operate in the midst of vulnerable civilians. In such circumstances, to ask Israeli soldiers to shoulder a highly elevated degree of risk in order to minimize the danger to foreign civilians (not under Israel's effective control) would violate the state's primary obligation to protect its own citizens (Kasher andYadlin 2005a: 51Á53, 2005b: 18). Kasher and Yadlin thus argue that the principle of distinction should be revised to take account of such cases.…”

Section: The Principle Of Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In a series of recent articles Professor Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University and Major General Amos Yadlin of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have advanced a forceful argument for revising the humanitarian principle of distinction that lies at the core of both the law of armed conflict and just war theory (Kasher & Yadlin 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, Kasher 2007. Specifically, they challenge the adequacy of the crude conventional distinction between combatant and noncombatant in the context of current asymmetrical conflicts between states and terrorist groups, and the general obligation that follows from it to respect civilians' immunity from combat operations even at an increased risk to soldiers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Upholding the Principle of Distinction in Counter-Terrorist Operations: A Dialogue

Plaw

2010

Journal of Military Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin have recently argued for a revised principle of distinction under which states should prioritize the protection of their own soldiers over that of noncombatants in certain combat scenarios. The situations that they envision are those in which a state's army is forced to fight terrorists on terrain which is not under the state's effective control. Kasher dramatizes the argument that the soldiers' safety should be prioritized by setting up a hypothetical conversation between the state and a soldier who asks 'Why should my state prefer an enemy citizen over me?' Kasher challenges his readers to offer the soldier a morally compelling answer. This article responds to Kasher's challenge by presenting a dialogue in which a commander (representing the state) offers the soldier four arguments which together provide a convincing answer. The commander grounds his arguments in differences in the amount of choice exercised by soldiers and civilians, the divergent ways the operation can be expected to impact on them, the different obligations they each have to the state, and the likely consequences of emphasizing the safety of soldiers over civilians. The dialogue provides support for the 'double intention' reading of the principle of distinction championed by Michael Walzer.

show abstract

Section: The Principle Of Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upholding the Principle of Distinction in Counter-Terrorist Operations: A Dialogue

Plaw

2010

Journal of Military Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When war pursues, the principle of distinction distinguishes the people into two sections; one section is the combatants being the appropriate targets of attack and destruction, and the other section is civilians, who are and should be protected (Kasher, 2007). Therefore, attacks of a kind that target both military objectives as well as civilians or civilian objects, regardless of the distinguished section, are referred to as indiscriminate strikes under international law (Ponti, 2015).…”

Section: Principle Of Distinctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

War Crimes in Gaza Strip From Year 2008 2021: Individual Criminal Responsibility Under the Legal Framework of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Alashqar

Rahim

Aziz

2023

Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the end of the year 2008 to 2021, Israel committed four wars in the Gaza Strip. These wars were known as Operation Cast Lead in2009, Operation Pillar of Cloud in 2012, Operation Protective Edge in 2014, and Operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021. The destructive impacts on vital facilities in Gaza, including schools, universities, mosques, hospitals, and United Nations Relief centers, as well as the killings of thousands of innocent civilians by Israeli forces, are visible evidence of a serious violation of the principle of distinction, a basic principle provided under the international humanitarian law conferring protection upon the civilians during armed conflicts. The accession of Palestine to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on crimes. This paper aims to analyze the position of individual criminal responsibility committed during the above-mentioned wars, regulated under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and other relevant international conventions. In analyzing the data from primary and secondary sources, this paper applied doctrinal legal research and qualitative approaches. This paper concludes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court associated the individual criminal responsibility for war crimes by systematically determining the extentof participation, namely: (1) commission; (2) ordering/instigating; (3) assistance; and (4) contribution to a war crime as a group crime. Thus, Israeli military leaders ought to be held liable for the commission of war crimes in accordance with Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The pretexts of the Israeli occupation to be exempt from criminal responsibility should be rejected according to the state of legitimate defense.

show abstract

“…An equally broad definition of a combatant is ‘ someone who distinguishes himself from the civilian population, carries arms openly and is subject to an internal disciplinary system ’ 30. Nonetheless, in spite of these thoughts, there are different standards to their respective roles and different outcomes to their actions that suggest a clear distinction 31. Each doctor and nurse is professionally accountable for their acts and omissions to their respective professional body 32 33.…”

Section: Professional Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Following professional codes of practice and military orders in austere military environments: a controversial debate on ethical challenges

Kelly

2015

J R Army Med Corps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2004, the World Medical Association's International Code of Ethics claimed that 'medical ethics in armed conflict is identical to medical ethics in times of peace'. This paper challenges this notion and suggests that the hostile, austere and diverse environments in which military doctors and nurses serve are significantly more problematic and different to a civilian healthcare environment. It debates that there may be some incompatibility and challenges between following military orders such as the protocols written down in a Medical Rules of Eligibility matrix and professional codes of practice in these environments. This is either where fighting takes place or where the mission is for humanitarian purposes.

show abstract

The Principle of Distinction

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Upholding the Principle of Distinction in Counter-Terrorist Operations: A Dialogue

Upholding the Principle of Distinction in Counter-Terrorist Operations: A Dialogue

War Crimes in Gaza Strip From Year 2008 2021: Individual Criminal Responsibility Under the Legal Framework of Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Following professional codes of practice and military orders in austere military environments: a controversial debate on ethical challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About