scholarly journals The Ethics of Economic Sanctions: Why Just War Theory is Not the Answer

Res Publica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ellis
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
North Korea ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Moral Issues ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Straightforward Application ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Critical Scrutiny

Abstract On 24 December 2017, the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet on North Korea. The measures, intended to thwart nuclear ambitions, are some of the most extensive sanctions imposed in recent times. They place severe restrictions on the export of crude oil and refined petroleum to that state, ban the export of arms, dual use equipment, rocket fuel, natural gas, luxury goods and financial services, ban the import of coal, iron, gold, seafood and textiles from North Korea, and include asset freezes and travel bans for targeted individuals. Economic sanctions raise serious moral issues, not least because if properly enforced they can cause significant harm to their targets. How should we assess their moral permissibility? Several authors have pointed out analogies between economic sanctions and war and then applied the just war principles (just cause, proportionality, etc.) to the problem. This approach has faced little critical scrutiny. I argue that the straightforward application of just war principles to sanctions is misguided. There is a significant difference between war and economic sanctions: war is constituted by bombing, shooting or stabbing but economic sanctions are constituted by refusing to trade. While there is a strong pro tanto duty to not bomb, shoot or stab individuals, there is no comparable pro tanto duty to trade. That does not mean sanctions are always morally permissible, only that the moral issues involved are very different. We have no reason to believe that moral principles developed to govern war are also appropriate for governing sanctions. This approach to the ethics of economic sanctions ought to be abandoned.

The Alternatives to War

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Comprehensive Account ◽  
The Face ◽  
Normative Issues ◽  
Better Than

If states are not to go to war, what should they do instead? In The Alternatives to War: From Sanctions to Non-violence, James Pattison considers the case for the alternatives to military action to address mass atrocities and aggression. He covers the normative issues raised by measures ranging from comprehensive economic sanctions, diplomacy, and positive incentives, to criminal prosecutions, non-violent resistance, accepting refugees, and arming rebels. For instance, given the indiscriminateness of many sanctions regimes, are sanctions any better than war? Should states avoid ‘megaphone diplomacy’ and adopt more subtle measures? What, if anything, can non-violent methods such as civilian defence and civilian peacekeeping do in the face of a ruthless opponent? Is it a serious concern that positive incentives can appear to reward aggressors? Overall, Pattison provides a comprehensive account of the ethics of the alternatives to war. In doing so, he argues that the case for war is weaker and the case for many of the alternatives is stronger than commonly thought. The upshot is that, when reacting to mass atrocities and aggression, states are generally required to pursue the alternatives to war rather than military action. Pattison concludes that this has significant implications for pacifism, Just War Theory, and the responsibility to protect doctrine.

Jus in vi

2021 ◽  
pp. 200-232
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Risk Principle ◽  
Psychological Risk ◽  
Risk Driving ◽  
The Way

Jus in vi is the set of moral principles governing how limited force is used. Taking the traditionalist jus in bello principles as a starting point, this chapter interrogates what necessity, proportionality, and distinction look like in a limited force context and makes the case for the novel psychological risk principle by evaluating how concepts such as “excessive,” “military advantage,” and “harms” and “goods” fit into our thinking about vim. The keystone of jus in vi is the predisposition toward maximal restraint maxim. The chapter thus begins by making the case for why jus in vi principles should be more restrictive than their jus in bello counterparts. It continues by exploring how a circumscribed view of necessity sets the groundwork for constraining proportionality calculations and shaping the way we think about distinction in more restricted ways. The notion of jus in vi proportionality is then explored, with concerns about escalation and psychological risk driving the analysis. Drawing insights from revisionist just war theory to consider jus in vi distinction, the chapter concludes by making the case for affording greater protections to both combatants and non-combatants compared to standard just war accounts. Unlike war, in which almost any soldier can be targeted, in a context of limited force only those who are an active threat can be justly targeted. Both innocent non-combatants and non-threatening combatants should be preserved from the more predictable harms of limited force, though this differs depending on whether the use of limited force is protective, preventive, or punitive.

scholarly journals The Irony of Just War

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cian O'Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Violent Conflict ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Modern Warfare

AbstractBy claiming that “just war is just war,” critics suggest that just war theory both distracts from and sanitizes the horror of modern warfare by dressing it up in the language of moral principles. However, the phrase can also be taken as a reminder of why we need just war theory in the first place. It is precisely because just war is just war, with all that this implies, that we must think so carefully and so judiciously about it. Of course, one could argue that the rump of just war scholarship over the past decade has been characterized by disinterest regarding the material realities of warfare. But is this still the case? This essay examines a series of benchmark books on the ethics of war published over the past year. All three exemplify an effort to grapple with the hard facts of modern violent conflict, and they all skillfully bring diverse traditions of just war thinking into conversation with one another.

Institutionalizing the Just War

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Institutional Innovation ◽  
Institutional Processes ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Morality Of War ◽  
As If

This book challenges traditional and contemporary just war theorizing, by taking seriously the role of social practices and institutions in decisions to go to war. It argues that which substantive moral principles regarding the initiation of war are valid can depend upon the institutional processes within which the decisions are made. Traditional and mainstream contemporary just war theorists proceed as if institutions don’t exist or as if existing institutional resources for influencing decision-making are so negligible that they may be disregarded. They fail to consider the possibility that institutional innovations could improve recourse to war decisions and that the fact that this is so has important implications for the morality of war-making. The first six chapters of the book lay out the case for institutionalizing the just war—for rethinking just war theory with due regard for the fact that institutional realities and possibilities shape the morality of war. The last two chapters advance concrete, feasible proposals for much-needed institutional innovation.

An Inquiry into the Moral Principles for Just WAR THEORY

J-Institute ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jinman Kim ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Moral Principles

Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Nardin
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Standard Account ◽  
Historical Experience ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
War Discourse ◽  
Political Character

Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars remains the standard account of just war theory despite the criticism it has received. Much of that criticism denies the political character of just war discourse by substituting general moral principles for principles generated in reflecting on the use of military force. It challenges Walzer’s view of the relationship between morality and politics and his conclusions about the moral standing of states, the moral equality of soldiers, the moral basis of humanitarian intervention, and the limits of morality in emergencies. Instead of providing a foundational argument, the book reconstructs a tradition of discourse that transcends particular contexts because of the range of historical experience on which it draws. The critics raise genuine issues but their objections do not undermine the book’s argument. That argument stands in a complex relationship with political realism, which it rejects in some ways and embraces in others.

Utilitarianism and Recourse to War

Utilitas ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM H. SHAW
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

Despite the enormous impact that war and the threat of war have had on human well-being, utilitarians have had surprisingly little to say about when, if ever, we may fight wars. Discussion of this question has been dominated by realism, pacifism and just war theory. This article takes some preliminary steps toward remedying this situation. I begin by spelling out what I call the Utilitarian War Principle (UWP). After presenting some considerations in its favour and answering some possible objections to it, I compare UWP with pacifism and with the principles of jus ad bellum found in the work of contemporary just war theorists. I argue that adherents of UWP should treat those principles as secondary moral principles, which, although subordinate to UWP, can and should guide its application and which, in turn, should be refined and revised with this goal in mind.

scholarly journals Just War and Just Battle: North Korea’s Attack against the ROKS Cheonan and its Unexplored Discourse of an Unjustified Military Action

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-25
Author(s):  
Kil Joo Ban
Keyword(s):  
North Korea ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Order ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Grand Theory ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Theory Of War ◽  
Limited Warfare ◽  
Post War

In March 2010, a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo against the South Korean ship Cheonan, which resulted in the deaths of 46 sailors. Is its surprise attack justified? The academic examination has rarely been made over whether North Korea’s use of military force is justified in this battle. As the just war theory to date has dealt mostly with major wars, it also can guide us to judge whether this limited warfare is just or not. The just war principles are composed of three axes: before, in and after wars. First, North Korea’s provocation had neither right cause nor right intension because it attacked the Cheonan preventively, not preemptively, and was intended to achieve its domestic objective, the stable succession of the Kim regime. Second, North Korea also did not observe in-war principles in the sense that it attacked and sank the Cheonan unproportionally to maximize the effectiveness of revenge. Third, North Korea was not interested in post-battle settlements but intended to aggravate tensions in the region, which is not compliant with post-war principles. The examination sheds some light on the need to expand the scope of just war principles from war to limited warfare and battles particularly in the sense that it helps restrain unethical warfare and maintain the rules-based international order. This expansion also will contribute to not only the richness of the just war theory but also further leading it to evolve into a grand theory of war.

Just assassinations

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 347-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamon Aloyo
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Violent Action

I argue that widely accepted just war theory precepts morally allow and require the assassination of politically powerful individuals under some circumstances instead of waging a just war or implementing any other policy such as non-targeted economic sanctions that would very likely severely harm more innocents. While all just war theory precepts permit just assassinations under certain circumstances, proportionality, necessity, and last resort make just assassinations required whenever they would cause severe harm to the fewest innocents. There are several implications of my argument. First, there are fewer circumstances when wars and other policies that foreseeably but unintentionally harm innocents are just than is commonly thought. Second, the realm of morally permissible violent and non-violent action for powerful individuals is more limited than many presume and politicians are more often morally liable to actions that would mitigate or end objectively unjust serious threats for which they are culpable, although this does not always include lethal force.

Basic Premises and Method

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-42
Author(s):  
Alec D. Walen
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
Causal Structure ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Test Cases ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
High Level

The reigning method in moral philosophy is the search for reflective equilibrium. An interesting feature of contemporary moral philosophy is how much weight most theorists put on matching intuitions in test cases, rather than finding plausible, relevant, high-level moral principles that can be used to generate mid-level principles and judgments in particular situations. This chapter covers four themes in two groups. The first group concerns the author’s general approach to moral theory. It includes the role of theory and cases in the author’s own work and the role of evidence and facts in justification. The second group concerns two topics specifically relevant to just war theory: reductive individualism and the distinctive causal structure of eliminative killing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document