Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
Chehtman, Alejandro Eduardo
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.date.available
2019-05-28T21:36:17Z
dc.date.issued
2017-04
dc.identifier.citation
Chehtman, Alejandro Eduardo; The ad bellum challenge of drones: Recalibrating permissible use of force; Oxford University Press; European Journal of International Law; 28; 1; 4-2017; 173-197
dc.identifier.issn
1464-3596
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/77380
dc.description.abstract
Drones constitute an incremental advance in weapons systems. They are able to significantly reduce overall, as well as collateral, damage. These features seem to have important implications for the ad bellum permissibility of resorting to military force. In short, drones would seem to expand the right to resort to military force compared to alternative weapons systems by making resorting to force proportionate in a wider set of circumstances. This line of reasoning has significant relevance in many contemporary conflicts. This article challenges this conclusion. It argues that resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would usually be disproportionate. The reason for this is twofold. First, under conditions of radical asymmetry, drones may not be discriminatory enough, and, thereby, collateral damage would still be disproportionate. Second, their perceived advantages in terms of greater discrimination are counteracted by the lesser chance of success in achieving the just cause for war. As a result, resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would generally be disproportionate not because of the harm they would expectedly cause but, rather, because of the limited harm they are ultimately able to prevent. On the basis of normative argument and empirical data, this article ultimately shows that we need to revise our understanding of ad bellum proportionality not only at the level of moral argument but also in international law.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Oxford University Press
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
Derecho Internacional
dc.subject
Etica de Los Conflictos Armados
dc.subject
Drones
dc.subject
Proporcionalidad
dc.subject.classification
Otras Derecho
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
Derecho
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS SOCIALES
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.title
The ad bellum challenge of drones: Recalibrating permissible use of force
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2019-05-28T18:40:30Z
dc.journal.volume
28
dc.journal.number
1
dc.journal.pagination
173-197
dc.journal.pais
Reino Unido
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.description.fil
Fil: Chehtman, Alejandro Eduardo. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. Escuela de Derecho; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
dc.journal.title
European Journal of International Law
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/28/1/173/3097809
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx001
Archivos asociados