ABSTRACT
Pushing Lubans second criticism further, David Rodin has challenged the whole consequentialist rationale for the right of national defense. It bears repeating that the utilitarian argument for the right of national defense. If states have misused the right of national defense, appealing to it to rationalize non-defensive warfare, this does not imply that we should repudiate that right, but rather that we must delineate its contours more precisely and criticize states that play fast and loose with it. Because our concern is with the right of national defense and its limits, This chapter describes which are the bearers of this right. What he is skeptical of, then, is any attempt to specify clear and straightforward conditions, analogous to those governing the right of national defense, in which a non-state entity would automatically have just cause for waging war or some sort of right to resort to armsprior to any consequentialist analysis.
