A Case of affirming the consequent in international law: un security council resolution 232 (1966)—southern rhodesia
Graduate studies at Western
History and Philosophy of Logic 15 (2):201-210 (1994)
|Abstract||In this note I examine a case of teleological reasoning in international law and find it to be the fallacy of affirming the consequent.I then show that and how the basis of this fallacy is a manipulation (or juxtaposition) of ?necessary? and ?sufficient? conditions.I conclude by giving reasons for thinking that this kind of reasoning is a regular feature of international law|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. Kamminga, Final Report on the Impact of International Human Rights Law on General International Law.
David M. Malone & James Cockayne, The UN Security Council: 10 Lessons From Iraq on Regulation and Accountability.
P. Takis Tridimas & Jose A. Gutierrez-Fons, EU Law, International Law and Economic Sanctions Against Terrorism: The Judiciary in Distress?
David Socher (2001). The Textbook Case of Affirming the Consequent. Teaching Philosophy 24 (3):241-251.
Ben Saul, The Dangers of the United Nations' 'New Security Agenda': 'Human Security' in the Asia-Pacific Region.
Jack L. Goldsmith (2007). The Limits of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Michael N. Schmitt * (2004). The Legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom Under International Law. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):82-104.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads2 ( #246,325 of 739,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?