Moral Equality of Combatants
The moral equality of combatants (MEC) is a doctrine about the principles governing the conduct of combatants in a war (where “conduct” is taken to include not only how combatants are permitted to fight, but whether they are permitted to fight). According to MEC, the principles governing the conduct of combatants in a war do not depend on what side in the war the combatants are fighting on. Thus, if MEC is correct, then for any side in a war, the principles governing the conduct of the combatants do not depend on whether that side is fighting a just war. Consequently, if it is permissible to fight in a just war, combatants do no wrong by fighting in an unjust war. The most distinguished supporter of this application of MEC is Michael Walzer. In his influential book Just and Unjust Wars (2000), Walzer argues that the responsibility for waging an unjust war rests with military and civilian leaders – not with combatants who typically have no control over the decisions made by their leaders, and who typically are subjected to deception, indoctrination, and coercion by the state. Thus, in a war with a just and unjust side, the combatants fighting on the unjust side (unjust combatants) are typically no less morally innocent than those fighting on the just side (just combatants). Walzer argues that since both just and unjust combatants are morally innocent (unless they commit war crimes) the principles governing combat ought not to distinguish just combatants from unjust combatants. 
 
 
Keywords: 
 
practical (applied) ethics; 
war and conflict
On the Moral Equality of Combatants
THERE’S a well-known scene in Shakespeare’s Henry V in which the King, disguised as an ordinary soldier, is conversing with some of his soldiers on the eve of the battle of Agincourt. Hoping to find or inspire support among them, he remarks: “Methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King’s company, his cause being just and his quarrel honorable.” One soldier replies: “That’s more than we know,” whereupon a second says: “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough if we know we are the King’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.” I don’t know whether Shakespeare recognized the now familiar legal distinction between justification and excuse. But if he had meant for this soldier to be claiming only an excuse, he probably would have had him say that the King’s authority wipes the guilt from them. But instead he says that it clears them of the crime: that is, even if the cause for which they fight is wrong, they commit no crime, or do no wrong, in fighting for it. This has been the dominant view about participation in an unjust war throughout history. And it’s central to the theory of the just war in its currently orthodox form. According to contemporary just war theory, the principles governing the conduct of war make no distinction between soldiers whose war is just and those whose war is unjust. These principles are held to be equally satisfiable by all those who fight. According to the theory, combatants do wrong if they violate these principles, though not if their war contravenes the principles that determine whether a war is just. For these latter principles apply only to those who have a role in deciding whether to resort to war, or to keep a war going.
International EMS systems: New South Wales, Australia.
Australia has an area of 7,692,024 km 2 and a population of 19,169,083. The state of New South Wales (NSW) has an area of 801,428 square kilometres and a population of 6,663,700 (June 2002). It contributes 10% of the land area of Australia and 34% of the population. The length of the coastline is 2007 km with an east-west distance of 1450 km (Fig. 1). Approximately 90% of the NSW population resides within 100 km of the coast. The population density is greatest in the Greater Metropolitan Region around Sydney, an area of 1580 square km, population of 4,154,722. Only 0.6% live in regions classified as remote or very remote (based upon distance to regional townships). The climate is generally mild, although temperature extremes range from � /20 8C (Charlotte’s Pass) to 50 8C (far Western NSW). The highest point is 2228 m at Mt. Kosciuszko. However, most of NSW is below 500 m in altitude.