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

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

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Share

COinS