The Principle of Sovereign Equality with Respect to Wars with Non-State Actors

The desire to defend a state against attacks by a non-state actor requires thinking about counter-attacking without violating the sovereign equality of the territorial state because targeting a non-state actor on the territory of that state may violate its sovereignty. This paper evaluates the main views on self-defense by states against non-state actors by studying the Just War Theory and argues that self-defense against a non-state actor is allowed if the counter-attack complies with the principle of sovereign equality. Sovereign equality is the prohibition of states from dominion over other states because states are equal to one another. This principle can be respected by allowing self-defense against non-state actors to occur only if the state consented to the use of force on its territory or if that state is incapable of controlling or unwilling to control the non-state actor.     

Pacifism, Just War, and Self-Defense

This essay distinguishes two main forms of pacifism, personal pacifism and political pacifism. It then contrasts the views on self-defense of political pacifism and just war theory, paying special attention to notions of the state and sovereignty.     

Forensic evaluations of battered women defendants: Relevant data to be applied to elements of self-defense

There has been no model of the relevant information that forensic experts should collect from battered women defendants for testifying in court in support of self-defense claims. This article proposes such a model, addressing the mental state of battered women at the time they killed their partners. Many killings of partners by battered women should be considered appropriate for self-defense claims, even when the fact situations do not appear to fit “classic” self-defense criteria. Forensic experts have an important role in bringing jurors to an understanding of how many battered womens' actions resulting in the death of a partner actually fit self-defense laws by explaining the fit between the facts of the case and the typical criteria of self-defense.     

Generalization effects of coping-skills training: influence of self-defense training on women's efficacy beliefs, assertiveness, and aggression

Concern for personal safety is a pervasive stressor for many women. Developing competencies in physical self-defense may empower women to engage more freely in daily activities with less fear. This study assessed the effects of physical self-defense training on multiple aspects of women's perceived self-efficacy and other self-reported personality characteristics. Training powerfully increased task-specific (self-defense) efficacy beliefs as well as physical and global efficacy beliefs. Training increased self-reported assertiveness, and posttraining decreases in hostility and aggression were found on several of the subscales of The Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992), indicating that training did not have an aggression-disinhibiting effect. In the experimental condition, most of the effects were maintained (and some delayed effects appeared at follow-up.     

Traditional martial arts versus modern self-defense training for women: Some comments

Most research conducted on women's self-protection strategies has focused on modern self-defense training, as opposed to traditional martial arts instruction. Further, traditional martial arts training has been characterized by many as less useful for women than modern self-defense instruction. However, no investigations have compared the effectiveness of these two approaches. Several misconceptions concerning traditional martial arts may explain why this form of self-protection has not been utilized as often, or evaluated as frequently, as other methods. This paper: (1) distinguishes traditional martial arts from modern self-defense training, (2) reviews research that has assessed behavioral outcomes of self-defense training strategies, and (3) discusses factors that influence perceptions and efficacy of such programs. To assist in these efforts, we include the expertise and perspectives of an internationally-recognized grandmaster in the Okinawan martial art of Shorin Ryu Karate. Suggestions for directions that future research in this area might take are offered.     

Maternal views on aggression: Japan and Israel

Maternal views on aggressive behavior in their children were investigated in Japan and Israel. Sixty Japanese and 60 Israeli mothers of kindergarten children were interviewed individually about their children's fighting and quarreling. The findings indicate that both Japanese and Israeli mothers disapprove of their children's aggression on the basis of their value system, but their views of the same aggressive behavior differ considerably; Japanese mothers consider aggression among children as natural; aggression is a fact of life which has its constructive as well as destructive aspects, but it should be kept under control in order not to cause harm to others. Israeli mothers consider their children's aggression to be dangerous both for the child and for the relationship with the opponent. It is approved as a reaction to assault, mainly in self-defense and considered caused by emotions, tension, and lack of self-control. Thus, aggression is perceived by Japanese mothers as a natural and necessary aspect of development, while Israeli mothers perceive the same behaviors as justified mainly as reactions to assault or provocation and as expressing negative emotional states. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Openly Carrying Handguns for Self-Defense

The journal articles in the extant philosophical literature which argue in favor of carrying handguns for self-defense tend to assume that these weapons will be concealed and make no mention of carrying them openly. This paper aims to show that, since open-carry can be more effective for self-defense than concealed-carry, any argument for a moral right to carry a handgun for self-defense which relies on a claim of their effectiveness and which assumes concealed-carry, entails the moral right to carry them openly in public.

     

Abortion and self-defense

Davis examines a view held in common by those she classifies as "restrictives," "moderates," and "permissives," that the right of self-defense justifies a pregnant woman's seeking an abortion when her life is at risk. While maintaining that abortion to preserve a woman's life is morally defensible, she argues that the doctrine of self-defense has been misapplied because the entitlement to self-defense has been misunderstood, and because the woman-fetus relationship precludes regarding the problem of abortion as simply a balancing of rights. She concludes that the defense of therapeutic abortion is neither straightforward nor unproblematic.     

Rodin on Self-Defense and the “Myth” of National Self-Defense: A Refutation

David Rodin denies that defensive wars against unjust aggression can be justified if the unjust aggression limits itself, for example, to the annexation of territory, the robbery of resources or the restriction of political freedom, but would endanger the lives, bodily integrity or freedom from slavery of the citizens only if the unjustly attacked state (or someone else) actually resisted the aggression. I will argue that Rodin’s position is not correct. First, Rodin’s comments on the necessity condition and its relation to an alleged “duty to retreat” misinterpret the law, and a correct interpretation of the law is not only compatible with, but implies a permission to resist the “bloodless invader,” and this is also the correct view from the perspective of morality. Second, Rodin’s remarks on the proportionality of self-defense against conditional threats focus on physical or material harm but implausibly ignore the severity of the violations of autonomy and of the socio-legal or moral order that such conditional threats involve. Third, I will address Rodin’s claim that (“often”) defensive wars against “political aggression” are disproportionate because they risk the lives of those defended in an attempt to secure lesser interests. I will argue that this take on proportionality misses the point in an important respect, namely by confusing wide and narrow proportionality, and makes unwarranted assumptions about the alleged irrationality or impermissibility of incurring or imposing lethal risks to safeguard less vital interests. Next, I will also show that while Rodin talks of a “myth of national self-defense” and of the necessity of moving beyond traditional just war theory and international law, it is actually his interpretation of just war theory and international law that weaves myths. Finally, I will argue that Rodin’s views on national self-defense on the one hand, and “war as law enforcement” on the other, are incoherent.     

Correlates of Postassault Self-Defense/Assertiveness Training Participation for Sexual Assault Survivors

Past research has shown that self-defense/assertiveness training may have positive implications for sexual assault survivors. However, little is known about the correlates of self-defense/assertiveness training participation for sexually victimized women. In this study we examined the assault characteristics and experiences that relate to women's enrollment in postassault training using data from 1,623 female college sexual assault survivors. It appears that more violent attacks may lead survivors to enroll in postassault training, especially when their resistance was less effective. Postassault training participants were marginally more likely to have told someone about their assault, experienced less supportive reactions from others, exhibited marginally less current anxiety, and reported more postassault suicidal ideation than nonparticipants. These survivors may enroll in training to exercise control over future assaults occurring and as a way of healing from sexual assault. Suggestions for future research and the development of self-defense training programs for sexual assault survivors are presented.     

Thinking Woman-to-Woman Rape: A Critique of Marcus’s “Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention”

This article uses the empirical fact of woman-to-woman rape as a lens to critique Sharon Marcus’s “Fighting Bodies, Fighting Words: A Theory and Politics of Rape Prevention.” To the extent that any theory forecloses this fact, we can assume it is erroneous. While Marcus’s work is promising in its intention to deconstruct binary views of gender, it largely reiterates the very dualism it seeks to destabilize. I explore two different deconstructive arguments that can be drawn from the piece, each of which has been adopted by some thinkers. The first forecloses woman-to-woman rape while the second makes theoretical room for it. The second argument has the potential to deconstruct the first. Following the logic of Judith Butler’s thoughts on gender transgression, I suggest a synthesis of these two arguments. Finally, I explore ways the self-defense strategies Marcus promotes can be made to accommodate survivors of gender transgressive assaults.     

A Puzzle About Proportionality

The paper addresses a puzzle about the proportionality requirement on self-defense due to L. Alexander. Indirectly the puzzle is also relevant to the proportionality requirement on punishment, insofar as the right to punish is derived from the right to self-defense. Alexander argues that there is no proportionality requirement on either self-defense or punishment, as long as the aggressor/offender has been forewarned of the risk of a disproportional response. To support his position Alexander appeals to some puzzle cases, challenging us to explain why the requirement applies in some of them when it clearly does not in others. The paper responds to his challenge by answering two questions: why does the proportionality requirement exist in the first place, and when does it apply? The paper argues that the requirement holds because of our need to protect our rights from violation, and that it applies to cases where the person defending his rights counts as having imposed a cost on one of the offender’s options. An account is offered of when such cost imposition occurs.

     

Responsibility and Self-Defense: Can We Have It All?

The role of responsibility in our common-sense morality of self-defense is complex. According to common-sense morality, one can sometimes use substantial, even deadly, force against people who are only minimally responsible for posing a threat to us. The role of responsibility in self-defense is thus limited. However, responsibility is still sometimes relevant. It sometime affects how much force you can use against a threatener: less if they are less responsible and more if they are more responsible. Is there a well-motivated theory that can explain both why the role of responsibility is limited and why it is sometimes relevant? It is hard to see what theory could unify these disparate elements of our common-sense morality, and if one cannot be found then we may simply have to revise some of our pre-theoretic beliefs. But it would be an important advantage of a theory if it could justify those beliefs. I will argue that there is a theory of this kind: surprisingly, the familiar rights theory of self-defense, defended by Judith Thomson, can do so if it is suitably supplemented. Along the way I will survey some alternative theories of self-defense and show why they are not up to the task.     

Attentional bias of students toward negative feedback in bad outcome situations: the mechanism of self-defense

The main goals of the present study were to investigate the effects of outcome valence on attentional bias toward feedback and examine the internal mechanism of self-defense. We systematically manipulated the outcome valence by providing a bogus score in a rational thinking task and recorded the time positive feedback and negative feedback was viewed in experiment 1. We added the intervention of self-affirmation to examine the self-defense mechanism in experiment 2. The results suggest that (1) in good outcome situations, the participants viewed negative feedback longer than positive feedback. There was a tendency to slightly reduce the attention given to negative feedback in bad outcome situations. (2) Self-affirming participants in bad outcome situations increased their viewing time of negative feedback, which supported the activation of defensiveness.     

Undermining Reasonableness: Expert Testimony in a Case Involving a Battered Woman Who Kills

Student participants  ( N = 316)  viewed a videotaped simulated case involving a woman who had entered a self-defense plea in the shooting death of her abusive husband. As successful claims of self-defense rest on the portrayal of a defendant who has responded reasonably to his/her situation, the implications of various forms of expert testimony in constructing this narrative were examined. Jurors were presented with either expert testimony regarding the battered woman syndrome (BWS), the BWS framed within post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) nomenclature, or a no-expert control condition. As the BWS classification may support a stereotypical victim, the degree to which the defendant fit the stereotype in terms of her access to a social support network (family, friends, employment outside of the home) was varied within the expert testimony conditions to reflect either a high or low degree of stereotype fit. Although jury verdicts failed to differ across expert testimony and stereotype fit conditions, perceptions of her credibility and mental stability did. Although affording jurors a framework from which the defendant's experiences as a battered woman may be acknowledged, this portrayal, as advanced within PTSD nomenclature, endorsed a pathological characterization of the defendant. Implications of this discourse for battered women within the context of self-defense are discussed.     

A Motivational Explanation for the Existence of Private Self-Consciousness Differences

ABSTRACT The present article investigates whether there are motivational underpinnings for individual differences in level of private self-consciousness The findings provide preliminary evidence that there are underlying motivational components of need for self-knowledge and need for self-defense In the first two studies, high private self-conscious individuals (PRSCs) reported placing a higher value on accurate self-knowledge than did low PRSCs (Study 2), and acted according to that value (Study 1) In Study 3, the pattern of results supported the view that low PRSCs may have a desire to avoid unpleasant self-knowledge Our tentative conclusion is that high PRSCs may have a need for self-knowledge that is stronger than their need to protect their self-esteem, whereas low PRSCs may have a need for self-defense that outweighs self-knowledge needs Implications of these findings both for other approaches to self-consciousness and for a better understanding of the etiology of self-consciousness are discussed     

Self-Defense against Verbal Assault: Shame, Anger, and the Social Bond

With many years of experience and refinement, the arts of self-defense against physical assault are highly developed. Without an effective theory and a useful practice, there is little in the way of self-defense against verbal assault. For THEORY, I draw upon ideas from aikido, family systems theory, and the sociology of emotions. Since unacknowledged shame seems to generate rage and damage social bonds, I emphasize the management of shame, anger, and bonds. To illustrate the meaning of these principles, I offer several episodes as examples, using the METHOD of discourse analysis. I apply this theory and method to the PRACTICE of psychotherapy by describing some rudimentary principles of defense of self against verbal aggression, especially the subtle aggression of innuendo. Psychotherapy is often an arena of verbal aggression by both therapist and client, even though it is usually unintentional and outside of awareness.     

KILLING, SELF-DEFENSE, AND BAD LUCK

This essay argues on behalf of a hybrid theory for an ethics of self-defense understood as the Forfeiture-Partiality Theory. The theory weds the idea that a malicious attacker forfeits the right to life to the idea that we are permitted to prefer one's life to another's in cases of involuntary harm or threat. The theory is meant to capture our intuitions both about instances in which we can draw a moral asymmetry between attacker and victim and cases in which we cannot. I develop the theory by attending to instances of intentional, villainous harm and instances of involuntary danger—the latter of which are a matter of bad luck. I call some bad luck cases "Interpersonal Lottery Conflicts." These cases refer to potentially lethal conflicts into which parties are thrown as victims of circumstance. Although neither party has a moral advantage over another, that fact does not preclude permissible self-defense.     

大学生心理压力应对方式特点的研究

本研究采用自编的大学生压力应对方式闯卷,考察了全国各地2007名大学生心理压力应对方式的特点。结果表明：(1)大学生压力应对方式问卷具有良好的内容效度和预测能力,内部一致性和测量稳定性理想;(2)大学生的压力应对方式总体上以心理调节机制为主,自我防御和外部疏导机制使用较少;(3)在压力的应对方式上,大一学生以外部求助、压抑、幻想和调整情绪方式为主,大二、大三学生以自我防御方式和总结经验为主,大四学生则较多采用心理调节机制的方式;(4)女生的应对方式比男生更积极,农村来源的大学生倾向于压抑自己和总结经验,城市来源的学生更喜欢宣泄压力,独生子女的应对方式以消极防御机制居多。