…or perhaps more accurately, how might we think through the dilemma of what can be justified (either in law or moral philosophy) in terms of the consequences for former rebels in non-international armed conflicts? Check out Frédéric Mégret’s piece

Fred’s article is a wonderful example of a thought piece. In aid of bridging the gap between international humanitarian lawyers and moral philosophers, he seeks to develop the most defensible case for granting amnesties in these complex and contested circumstances. The substantive topic is engaging enough on its own. The piece is additionally worth reading, though, because it provides an opportunity to watch Fred think, and the organization of his thinking about this topic is marvellous. The piece unfolds by him asking himself questions: could the justification be this? No. How about this? Not really. And so on.

Fred is the Canada Research Chair on the Law of Human Rights and Legal Pluralism at McGill. He works in those areas, not surprisingly, and more generally in international law and international criminal law and procedure. Less obvious from his profile is that he’s a “go to” man if you’re interested in anything related to technology. Over time he’s started three or four blogs (see this older one on technology).