Self-Defense in International Law and Rights of Persons (Response to war and Self-Defense‪)‬

In War and Self-Defense David Rodin uncovers many flaws of current thinking about war. (1) Rodin correctly points out that the justification of national self-defense goes beyond the justification of individual self-defense. He accurately rejects the standard notion of moral symmetry--the accepted view that both just and unjust warriors can permissibly kill enemies as long as they observe the laws of war. Rodin vindicates the right view: if a war is unjust, each and every injury caused by the unjust warrior is a criminal act. There are no morally justified killings by those who fight unjust wars. Further, Rodin rightly rejects various holistic theories of self-defense. Last but not least, he correctly denounces what I have called the Hegelian Myth, (2) the idea that tyrannical governments are worth defending against interventions aimed at deposing them because they are protected by the principle of sovereignty. Despite these important achievements, which Rodin articulates in clear and penetrating prose, his rejection of a plausible version of national self-defense ultimately fails. (3) I will concentrate on liberal arguments for self-defense--those for which the end of self-defense is the protection of vital rights or interests of individuals.