全球智库信息集成服务系统

Existing moral frameworks have not outlived their usefulness.

• The majority view among academic experts was that existing moral frameworks and principles continue to apply. That said, some advocate for a new interpretation of existing principles or amendment to or a confirmation of underpinning definitions.

There is a considerable disparity in the legal interpretations of the terms 'armed attack' and 'harm'.

• Significant disparity exists in the legal interpretations applied to the term 'armed attack' (which is critical in determining the legality of a resort to force) and in deliberations regarding what constitutes (sufficient) 'harm' (including both physical and non-physical effects). This is particularly contentious in relation to cyber.

There was general consensus among those consulted that there appears no moral obligation to respond 'in kind'.

• Theorists generally agree that there is no particular moral barrier to responding to a non-kinetic attack — once confirmed as constituting an 'armed attack' — with kinetic force if this is considered the most appropriate course of action under the specific circumstances.

Under a revisionist line of thinking, the legal definition of combatants does not sufficiently account for moral intentions of individuals involved in conflict.

• Revisionist approaches to just war theory challenge the legal distinction between combatants and non-combatants since they do not account for the moral intentions of individuals party to a conflict. Under this line of thinking, non-combatants may render themselves liable to harm if their actions infer their support for an 'unjust war'.