Document Type
Article
Publication Date
4-2019
Publication Title
Journal of Military Ethics
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
2-19
Publisher Name
Taylor and Francis
Abstract
This paper counters Michael Walzer’s argument against tight blockades. It shows that the interdiction of food shipments need not violate the principle of noncombatant immunity. Whether it is morally permissible to impose a strict blockade depends on the circumstances of the target state. The more self-sufficient a country is, the more acceptable it should be for a belligerent to cut the enemy’s external lines of supply. The Allied blockade of Germany during the First World War illustrates the argument. Fault in this case should be assigned to the German government for the loss of civilian lives.
Identifier
1502-7570
Recommended Citation
Mayer, Robert. Noncombatant Immunity and the Ethics of Blockade. Journal of Military Ethics, 18, 1: 2-19, 2019. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Political Science: Faculty Publications and Other Works, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2019.1622257
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright Statement
© Taylor and Francis, 2019.
Comments
Author Posting © Taylor and Francis, 2019. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Taylor and Francis for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Military Ethics, Volume 18, Issue 1, April, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2019.1622257