The relevance of nuremberg
Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):22-46 (1971)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesL. Jonathan Cohen (1994). Some Steps Towards a General Theory of Relevance. Synthese 101 (2):171 - 185.
Tibor Payzs (1947). The Nuremberg Trial and Aggressive War. Thought 22 (2):324-326.
J. -C. Guillebaud (2002). Definition of Man: What is Left of the Nuremberg Code? Diogenes 49 (195):7-12.
Thomas J. Higgins (1950). Moral Aspects of Nuremberg. Thought 25 (2):344-345.
James P. Delgrande & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (1998). A Formal Analysis of Relevance. Erkenntnis 49 (2):137-173.
Hans-Martin Sass (1983). Reichsrundschreiben 1931: Pre-Nuremberg German Regulations Concerning New Therapy and Human Experimentation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 8 (2):99-112.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads42 ( #27,087 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
