ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that grounding the distinction in the theory of autonomy gives one's clearer, more consistent guidance than other theories do in deciding who is a legitimate target. It discusses the two distinct issues. The first issue deals with different accounts of the distinction given by other theorists. The other issue deals with certain problems within the convention itself. The chapter examines this issue and suggests that the war convention, including international law, be revised in terms of the theory of autonomy. It challenges what has become, in many respects, accepted dogma. The chapter contends that the clarity provided by a better understanding of the distinction between combatants and noncombatants gives us good reason to revise the war convention in the quest for consistency. It proposes that informed by the theory of autonomy, put much stricter limitations on military action than those currently recognized under international law.
