Critical comment on Chehtman's presentation: 'Occupation courts, jus ad bellum, and non-state actors: assessing the morality of military occupation'

FRANCISCO GARCÍA GIBSON

CABA

Simposio; Simposio Internacional 'Derechos humanos y democracia en un mundo globalizado'; 2012

Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Centro de Investigaciones Filosóficas

In this critical comment on Alejandro Chehtman's presentation I focus on his argument about the legitimate authority of unjust military occupation. Against Chehtman's argument, I claim that the occupied people have a claim-right to resist every aspect of the unjust ocuppier's presence and control, which includes their will to judge and punish. This idea might be backed by the following thought: it is the unjust occupier who created the need to recur to him for justice. It is him who created this no-exit situation in which him and only him can provide criminal justice. The occupied people have no causal responsibility regarding that fact, so they should be free to refuse to be subject to that situation.