Description
It is widely accepted that individuals and states have a right to resist unjust aggression, a right enshrined in international law and various moral and ethical frameworks. However the right to continued resistance during an occupation is not universally accepted. It may seem intuitive that ‘Just Warriors’ should be able to continue their struggle against ‘Unjust Aggressors’ but some Just War Theorists adopt a highly restrictive view on the legitimacy of armed resistance after a state surrenders.
For those who defend this possibility, one area of particular scrutiny is the question of who could be targeted by ‘Just Resistors’. Accepting a right to resist does not necessarily mean accepting a right to kill, there are non-lethal options for resistance. But should those approaches fail, who can be targeted? And what degrees of culpability must those targets display to be legitimately justified?
This paper reflects on the ethics of resistance, exploring the threats to two kinds of security forces: firstly, members of foreign occupying forces; secondly, members of indigenous forces aligned with them. In doing so the paper explores the arguments around who represent legitimate targets for justified resistance and what impact different degrees of culpability have on any targeting criteria.
