Abstract

Alejandro Chehtman has developed a sophisticated moral argument to support a limited version of the principle of symmetry between just and unjust belligerents. He argues that both types of belligerent have symmetric rights and duties to judge and punish criminal offenders in occupied territories. In this paper I argue that although his argument shows that there is symmetry regarding rights, it does not show the same regarding duties. Just occupants do not have a duty to provide criminal justice in the occupied territories, or at least not a duty as stringent as that of unjust occupants. The reason is that a self-defensive just occupant, unlike an unjust occupant, cannot be regarded as ultimately responsible for the occupation, nor for remedying its undesired consequences -such as the interruption of the system of criminal justice-, at least when remedying them would impose considerable costs on the occupant.