Just War Thinking as a Social Practice

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kelsay
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Social Practice ◽  
Just War ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
War Discourse

The abstract for the International Studies Association panel that gave rise to this special section of Ethics & International Affairs referred to the “triumph” of just war theory. However, I think we ought rather to speak of just war discourse as occupying a particular niche. This is especially so with respect to discussions about policy: when and where governments should make use of military force, what type, and so on. In that context, appeals to the criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello complement (or sometimes compete with) thinking that draws on international law, various strategic doctrines (for example, counterinsurgency warfare, or COIN), notions of reciprocity between states, and a host of other considerations. The notion of “triumph” claims too much. At the same time, for advocates of the just war framework, the kind of recognition indicated by presidential and other official mentions of the idea is worthy of note. Some of these are due to constituency politics—that is, to the idea that “institutional” advocates of just war (say, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) may influence blocs of voters. Other invocations are better interpreted as a recognition that the vocabulary of just war can serve (along with other ways of speaking) in the attempt to craft wise policy.

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.

The Conceptual World of the Yale School of International Law

1968 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gidon Gottlieb
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
International Studies ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Demarcation Line ◽  
Actual Experience ◽  
Principal Tool ◽  
Political Decisions

International agreements perform functions worthy of the closest attention of the student of international affairs. They are a principal tool of diplomacy and the aim of most negotiations. Many such agreements are not intended to create legal relationships, and the demarcation line between legally binding agreements and other consensual relationships is correspondingly hazy and uncertain. International agreements have not, however, received in recent times nearly the degree of attention devoted in international studies to “force” and “power.” This is so despite the fact that they generally reflect the participants' power calculations and shared expectations. They are an essential mode of guidance and regulation in international relations, helping to shape decisions and claims sometimes even in the course of armed conflicts. International agreements loom large in the actual experience of statesmen, jurists, and military men—their conclusion, their application, and their breach represent complex political decisions with frequently serious outcomes leading to shifts in power relationships.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando R. Tesón ◽  
Bas van der Vossen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Collective Self

We introduce general concepts of just war theory and describe different kinds of war: national self-defense, collective self-defense, and humanitarian intervention. After laying down the conditions for the justification of humanitarian intervention, we highlight some of our differences. We conclude with an outline of the international law of use of force and some jurisprudential themes that bear on the current humanitarian intervention debate.

Jus Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRIAN OREND
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Regime Change ◽  
Just War ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Body ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Jus Post Bellum

The introduction explains how this essay articulates the issue of ‘justice after war’ from the point of view of just-war theory, and how such a view can and ought to impact upon international law, for instance by inspiring the eventual development of a new treaty, or Geneva Convention, exclusively concerned with issues of postwar justice. In the body of the essay, attention is first given to explaining why just-war theory has traditionally ignored, or even rejected, jus post bellum. Second, argument is made as to why this ignorance and rejection must be overcome, and replaced with information and inclusion. Third, principles drawing on traditional just-war theory are constructed and defended, for jus post bellum in general and for forcible postwar regime change in particular. Finally, several remaining challenges are addressed, seeking to dissolve doubts and strengthen resolve towards working for progress on this vital and topical issue of jus post bellum.

scholarly journals The resort to military force in the COVID-19 health emergency: A justification

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (35) ◽  
pp. 549-569
Author(s):  
Zivorad Rasevic
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Domestic Use ◽  
Military Support ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Emergency Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic has been mobilizing the full capacities of societies worldwide to respond to unprecedented threats to national and human security. In many cases, emergency measures have involved military support to civil institutions, including law enforcement operations. This paper aims to understand the legality and legitimacy of these military operations better, using hermeneutic, comparative, and survey methodology. It is based on the assumptions that international human rights standards crucially determine moral requirements for domestic use of military force and that just war theory can be equally helpful in the decision-making on domestic military operations in such circumstances. This study assesses the justification of current military enforcement and recommends criteria for future emergencies.

scholarly journals Richard A. Falk, The Costs of War: International Law, The UN and World Order

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 240
Author(s):  
James A. Green
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Military Intervention ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Norms ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Potential Utility ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Realist Approach

The Costs of War ultimately represents an impassioned plea for an ideological shift in international affairs on the part of both governments and individuals, particularly in the context of the use of military force. In it, Professor Falk highlights the damage caused to world order by what he views as the progressive slide towards a geopolitical realist approach to international politics and away from Wilsonian international co-operation and normative restraint: a slide that culminated in the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Importantly, he argues for the potential utility of international norms (most notably international law) as a means for better securing world order.

scholarly journals Between Legality and Legitimacy, a proposal for Judicial Review of Security Council Collective Security Actions in Light of Responsibility to Protect and Just War Theory

2019 ◽  
pp. 173-214
Author(s):  
Jorge Luis Almeida Estrella
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
The Icj

The purpose of this article is to question whether the powers of the United Nations Security Council (SC) are subject to any limitation under international law, especially in the context of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) doctrine. And consequently, which organism will be entitled to hold the SC accountable for its actions, and how that organism should do it. The first chapter of this article deals with the possible limitations of the SC, it considers both legal and legitimacy restraints to the broad powers of the SC. Additionally, we will explain how RtoP presents itself as a new challenge to the legitimacy of the SC. Chapter 2 discusses which organisms within the UN system, may be appropriate to hold the SC responsible for its actions. Finally, in Chapter 3, we will review the legal status of RtoP, and explain how the ICJ could use Just War criteria as a valuable tool for a judicial review process of SC decisions based on RtoP.

The Pragmatic Approach

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Moral Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
International System ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Pragmatic Approach ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Alternative Approaches

This chapter explicates the Pragmatic Approach, which is used to assess the ethics of the alternatives to war. This approach is pragmatic in that it is significantly instrumentalist and takes seriously the nonideal and contingent features of the contemporary international system. The chapter first outlines a series of tests any moral theory should meet, before going on to present the central features of the Pragmatic Approach. The chapter then defends this approach, showing how it meets the four tests outlined and is superior to alternative approaches. It also delineates the links to Just War Theory, and especially the jus ad bellum principles of necessity and proportionality. The end of the chapter considers how the values on the Pragmatic Approach should be weighed.

The Alternatives, Just War Theory, and Pacifism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Feasible Option ◽  
Practical Implications

This chapter delineates the theoretical and practical implications of the preceding analysis. It first summarizes the case for each of the alternatives in turn, before considering the implications for war. In doing so, the chapter highlights the two central themes of the book: (1) there are several normative reasons in favour of the alternatives and (2) there are further objections to war. It argues that, although the preceding analysis appears to strengthen the case for pacifism (since there is more to the alternatives than it often seems), it also poses a challenge to it. The chapter then outlines the implications for the jus ad bellum principle of last resort. It defends an account of ‘Presumptive Last Resort’, which holds that war should be presumed to be the last feasible option. It also outlines five implications for the responsibility to protect doctrine.

Territorial Rights and National Defence

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Stilz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Political Cooperation ◽  
The Common ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
National Defence

Both just war theory and international law recognize the defence of one’s own state and its territory as the core example of just cause for war. Yet just war theorists have done little to explore what might give the state a territorial right of this kind. This chapter argues that a state has a right to territorial integrity when it meets three conditions: (1) its citizens have a right to occupy its territory, (2) its scheme of law is minimally just, and (3) the relationship of political cooperation that supports its institutions is reasonably and widely affirmed. This chapter then considers whether a state that satisfies these conditions may defend its territorial integrity with lethal force. This account does not support the common-sense conviction that defending one’s state against aggression is always morally permitted or even required. But it can establish a defensive privilege in a central range of cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document