| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that there are two justifications of the right of national defense. First, some states possess the right as a means of protecting legitimate domestic political institutions. Second, all states possess the right within a morally defensible form of international law. Critics have argued that the first justification does not explain why one legitimate state should have the right not to be attacked and conquered by another legitimate state. Critics have argued that the second justification does not recognize that current international law is too flawed to justify a right of national defense for all states. This article defends the right against both criticisms. It then considers the scope of the right, focusing on the issue of proportionality. The article also argues that the two justifications of the right express potentially conflicting principles of justice, which can sometimes lead to hard choices, as illustrated by the NATO intervention in Kosovo.
|