Reprisalzer's Analysis

1. A) Reprisals are sanctions that are set up to prevent further occurrences of war crimes, or driving one’s opponent remedy previous committed crimes. Normally, these acts are violating the laws of war, but are allowed if they prevent one’s opponent to adhere to the laws of war. It is critical to understand that the intent behind a reprisal is to force adherence to the law of war, in contrast of revenge. Luxury’s that are provided in jus in bello are invalid in a situation of reprisals. In World War II, Germany executed French Resistance soldiers in spite of the protesting French provisional government. As a reaction of their actions, the French killed German prisoners under their control. This leads to the idea, that Reprisals can be used
He believes that the the evidence surrounding the reasoning for the reprisals are not convincing. Christopher argues that “reprisals tend to lead to counterreprisals and an eventual denegation of all restraints in the conduct of war” (p. 175)

2. A) Michael Walzer’s stance is against Cohen, in reference to reprisals. Michael Walzer denies the idea that reprisals are the only solution. In the German and French resistance case, Walzer offers an alternative method. He states that the French should have raided German prison camps, name and shame the German war criminals, and threaten to conduct reprisals; not actually doing them. Walzer heavily advocates against attacking innocent civilians, and believes there are other alternatives that can be pursued.

B) There are situations when reprisals may be legitimately conducted. These situations must adhere to the same criteria used to justify military necessity. Reprisals are a political choice therefore subject to jus ad bellum. A sovereign state may use reprisals in adherence with jus ad bellum when a belligerent nation uses illegal and immoral act. Also, if the acts of the belligerent nation violate the laws of
A) The absolutist position is the idea that laws of war are absolute. Meaning, they are decreed final. Absolute prescriptions are not capable of being voided. Thomas Nagel defends the absolutist position, rejecting necessity as reasonable justification. Thomas Nagel’s holds a realist perspective. He argues that there is no solution to every moral problem. Christopher states that Nagels’ “commitment to the resort to arms in the first place has already shown that Nagel accepts some justifications for intentionally setting aside the principles of jus in bello.” (p. 162) Nagel stresses the importance that there is no morality in using necessity as reasonable