Normas y discursos. Los conflictos armados y el derecho penal antes y después del 11-S
In this paper we will analyze several aspects of the ‘war on terror’ by comparing the classic legal war-paradigm with the security policies that have been activated after 9/11. Taking certain cornestones of ius publicum europaeumas our starting point (such as the distinction between enemy and crimin...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2016 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Academica-e. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:academica-e.unavarra.es:2454/40788 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2454/40788 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ius ad bellum/ius in bello War on terror Just war Security Preventive defense |
| Sumario: | In this paper we will analyze several aspects of the ‘war on terror’ by comparing the classic legal war-paradigm with the security policies that have been activated after 9/11. Taking certain cornestones of ius publicum europaeumas our starting point (such as the distinction between enemy and criminal or the principle of equality between enemies), we will try to show how the current restoration of the ‘just war doctrine’ is increasing the confusion between international responsibility and criminal liability, thereby blurring the distinction between ius ad bellumand ius in bello. However, in our view, the reasons put forward to support these ‘new wars’, far from being new, have on the contrary legitimated a way back to discursive and normative mechanisms that justify war with medieval arguments. |
|---|