13 found
Sort by:
  1. Ned Dobos (2013). The Problem of Private Military Contractors. In Fritz Allhoff, Nicholas Evans & Adam Henschke (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and War: Just War Theory in the 21st Century. Routledge. 265.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ned Dobos (2012). International Rescue and Mediated Consequences. Ethics and International Affairs 26 (3):335-353.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Ned Dobos (2012). The Democratization of Credit. Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (1):50-63.
  4. Ned Dobos (2011). Consistency in the Armed Enforcement of Human Rights: A Moral Necessity? Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (1):92-109.
    There is no denying that international human rights norms are enforced selectively. Some oppressive governments become the targets of military intervention, while the political sovereignty of other, equally oppressive regimes is left intact. My aim in this paper is to determine whether a military operation to defend human rights can possibly be made morally illegitimate by the fact that the state prosecuting it has failed, is failing or will fail to defend human rights under relevantly similar circumstances elsewhere.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ned Dobos (2011). Insurrection and Intervention: The Two Faces of Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press.
    Machine generated contents note: Introduction; 1. Communal self-determination; 2. Costs and consequences; 3. Asymmetries in jus ad bellum; 4. Asymmetries in jus in bello; 5. Humanitarian intervention and national responsibility; 6. The issue of selectivity; 7. Proper authority and international authorisation; Conclusion.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Ned Dobos (2011). Non-Libertarianism and Shareholder Theory: A Reply to Schaefer. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 98 (2):273 - 279.
    Libertarianism and the shareholder model of corporate responsibility have long been thought of as natural bedfellows. In a recent contribution to the Journal of Business Ethics, Brian Schaefer goes so far as to suggest that a proponent of shareholder theory cannot coherendy and consistently embrace any moral position other than philosophical libertarianism. The view that managers have a fiduciary obligation to advance the interests of shareholders exclusively is depicted as fundamentally incompatible with the acknowledgement of natural positive duties – duties (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Ned Dobos, Christian Barry & Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge (eds.) (2011). Global Financial Crisis: The Ethical Issues. Palgrave Macmillan.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ned Dobos (2010). A State to Call Their Own: Insurrection, Intervention, and the Communal Integrity Thesis. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (1):26-38.
    Many reasons have been given as to why humanitarian intervention might not be justified even where rebellion with similar aims would be a morally legitimate option. One of them is that intervention involves the imposition of alien values on the target society. Michael Walzer formulates this objection in terms of a people's right to a state that 'expresses their inherited culture' and that they can truly 'call their own'. I argue that this right can plausibly be said to extend sovereignty (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Ned Dobos (2010). Is U.N. Security Council Authorisation for Armed Humanitarian Intervention Morally Necessary? Philosophia 38 (3):499-515.
    Relative to the abundance of literature devoted to the legal significance of UN authorisation, little has been written about whether the UN’s failure to sanction an intervention can ever make it immoral. This is the question that I take up here. I argue that UN authorisation (or lack thereof) can have some indirect bearing on the moral status of a humanitarian intervention. That is, it can affect whether an intervention satisfies other widely accepted justifying conditions, such as proportionality, “internal” legitimacy, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Ned Dobos (2010). On Altruistic War and National Responsibility: Justifying Humanitarian Intervention to Soldiers and Taxpayers. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):19 - 31.
    The principle of absolute sovereignty may have been consigned to history, but a strong presumption against foreign intervention seems to have been left in its stead. On the dominant view, only massacre and ethnic cleansing justify armed intervention, these harms must be already occurring or imminent, and the prudential constraints on war must be satisfied. Each of these conditions has recently come under pressure. Those looking to defend the dominant view have typically done so by invoking international peace and stability, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Ned Dobos (2009). From Revolution to Regime Change. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):199-211.
    The fact that armed revolution would be justified under certain circumstances does not guarantee the legitimacy of foreign intervention in aid of, or in place that revolution, even where the means employed and the ends sought are similar. One commonly given reason for this is that foreign intervention might fall short of the prudential constraints on war—proportionality, last resort, likelihood of success—where rebellion would live up to them. But those who make this argument often seem to assume that the prudential (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ned Dobos (2008). Rebellion, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Prudential Constraints on War. Journal of Military Ethics 7 (2):102-115.
    Both radical rebellion and humanitarian intervention aim to defend citizens against tyranny and human rights abuses at the hands of their government. The only difference is that rebellion is waged by the oppressed subjects themselves, while humanitarian intervention is carried out by foreigners on their behalf. In this paper, it is argued that the prudential constraints on war (last resort, probability of success, and proportionality) impose tighter restrictions on, or demand more of, humanitarian interveners than they do of rebels. Specifically, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Ned Dobos (2007). Democratic Authorization and Civilian Immunity. Philosophical Forum 38 (1):81–88.