Artikel

Oorlog, zelfverdediging en appeasement: hoe verantwoord is het bieden van hopeloos verzet?

---

Samenvatting

According to the UN-Charter, each State has an inherent right to defend itself against an ongoing aggression. National self-defense is also an important – and perhaps even the most important – just cause in Just War Theory. The fact that national self-defense is so deeply entrenched in our common moral beliefs can be explained by the mechanism of domestic analogy: if an individual has a right to defend herself against an aggression, why not a nation that is the victim of a largescale armed attack? There is, however, an important difference between both forms of self-defense. If a defensive war has no prospect of success, then the Just War Theory forbids the use of force. This is not so for an individual who knows her defensive efforts will make no difference in the end. This article has three objectives. First, I try to determine in what way the success condition could be appropriately interpreted in case a nation has no chance of defending itself successfully against an aggression. Secondly, I want to show that although a similar interpretation of the success condition is also at work within the context of individual self-defense, there are several factors that can help to explain why the success requirement will not be included in the ethics of individual self-defense. Finally, I want to formulate some brief reflections on the Ukraine defensive war against the Russian aggression (24 February 2022) in the light of the findings of this article.

Hoe citeren:

Ceulemans, C., (2023) “Oorlog, zelfverdediging en appeasement: hoe verantwoord is het bieden van hopeloos verzet?”, Ethiek en Maatschappij 25(2), 57–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/em.94657