This is a debate post. All opinions expressed in the text are the responsibility of the writer. If you want to participate in the debate, you can read how here.
In Aftenposten of 18 July, Professor Torkel Brekke argues that it may be ethical to use problematic weapons in an emergency situation, such as Ukraine, following a military attack. In practice, it does not stop.
It is common for both sides in a war to claim to be defending themselves against a greater or lesser threat. If one side uses certain weapons, the other will think they can respond to them. Brekke’s reasoning therefore makes little sense in limiting the use of cluster munitions.
But what if you are a victim of genocide? Genocide is defined, inter alia, as murder committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. Many war crimes have been proven in Ukraine, but the UN Commission of Inquiry does not use the term ‘genocide’ in its March report this year.
I, as a former prosecutor, would not consider charges of genocide. The question thus becomes purely hypothetical.
Arne Willy Dahl,
Attorney General (p.)
Class weapons and ethics
World News,Next Big Thing in Public Knowledg
#Class #weapons #ethics
