‘Private war’ and non-state terrorism. Criminalisation in the grammar of terror
This papers deals with non-state terrorism on the basis of an approach that combines twoexplanatory hypotheses: the first one argues that it constitutes one of the poles of private warfare,and the second one that it implies a dislocation of what I have called “state hylomorphism”, insofaras it does...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto de Filosofía - Facultad de Humanidades. UNNE
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unne.edu.ar/index.php/nit/article/view/8457 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This papers deals with non-state terrorism on the basis of an approach that combines twoexplanatory hypotheses: the first one argues that it constitutes one of the poles of private warfare,and the second one that it implies a dislocation of what I have called “state hylomorphism”, insofaras it does not admit a sovereignly defined political body neither it responds to centralisedcommands. Because of these characteristics, terrorism moves outside the international law thatregulates the action of sovereign units, and its logic of terror makes it impossible to apply theprinciples of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. It will be shown that the philosophical arguments thathave often been put forward to justify it are unconvincing in the light of a deeper analysis, forwhich the 9/11 attacks will serve as an exemplary case study. |
|---|