naa a22 4500 510789331 CHVBK 20180411083313.0 cr unu---uuuuu 180411e20131201xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s11406-013-9452-3 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s11406-013-9452-3 Steinhoff Uwe Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Hong Kong, Jockey Club Tower, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong aut Rodin on Self-Defense and the "Myth” of National Self-Defense: A Refutation [Elektronische Daten] [Uwe Steinhoff] David Rodin denies that defensive wars against unjust aggression can be justified if the unjust aggression limits itself, for example, to the annexation of territory, the robbery of resources or the restriction of political freedom, but would endanger the lives, bodily integrity or freedom from slavery of the citizens only if the unjustly attacked state (or someone else) actually resisted the aggression. I will argue that Rodin's position is not correct. First, Rodin's comments on the necessity condition and its relation to an alleged "duty to retreat” misinterpret the law, and a correct interpretation of the law is not only compatible with, but implies a permission to resist the "bloodless invader,” and this is also the correct view from the perspective of morality. Second, Rodin's remarks on the proportionality of self-defense against conditional threats focus on physical or material harm but implausibly ignore the severity of the violations of autonomy and of the socio-legal or moral order that such conditional threats involve. Third, I will address Rodin's claim that ("often”) defensive wars against "political aggression” are disproportionate because they risk the lives of those defended in an attempt to secure lesser interests. I will argue that this take on proportionality misses the point in an important respect, namely by confusing wide and narrow proportionality, and makes unwarranted assumptions about the alleged irrationality or impermissibility of incurring or imposing lethal risks to safeguard less vital interests. Next, I will also show that while Rodin talks of a "myth of national self-defense” and of the necessity of moving beyond traditional just war theory and international law, it is actually his interpretation of just war theory and international law that weaves myths. Finally, I will argue that Rodin's views on national self-defense on the one hand, and "war as law enforcement” on the other, are incoherent. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2013 Duty to retreat nationallicence Law enforcement nationallicence National defense nationallicence Necessity nationallicence Political aggression nationallicence Proportionality nationallicence Rodin, David nationallicence Self-defense nationallicence War nationallicence Philosophia Springer Netherlands 41/4(2013-12-01), 1017-1036 0048-3893 41:4<1017 2013 41 11406 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9452-3 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-013-9452-3 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Steinhoff Uwe Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Hong Kong, Jockey Club Tower, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, Hong Kong aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Philosophia Springer Netherlands 41/4(2013-12-01), 1017-1036 0048-3893 41:4<1017 2013 41 11406 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer