Just and Unjust Uses of Limited Force

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Use Context ◽  
Just War Tradition

Limited force—no-fly zones, limited strikes, Special Forces raids, and drones strikes outside “hot” battlefields—has been at the nexus of the moral and strategic debates about just war since the fall of the Berlin Wall but has remained largely under-theorized. The main premise of the book is that limited force is different than war in scope, strategic purpose, and ethical permissions and restraints. By revisiting the major wars animating contemporary just war scholarship (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the drone “wars,” and Libya) and drawing insights from the just war tradition, this book teases out an ethical account of force-short-of-war. It covers the deliberation about whether to use limited force (jus ad vim), restraints that govern its use (jus in vi), when to stop (jus ex vi), and the after-use context (jus post vim). While these moral categories parallel to some extent their just war counterparts of jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum, and jus ex bello, the book illustrates how they can be reimagined and recalibrated in a limited force context, while also introducing new specific to the dilemmas associated with escalation and risk. As the argument unfolds, the reader will be presented with a view of limited force as a moral alternative to war, exposed to a series of dilemmas that raise challenges regarding when and how limited force is used, and provided with a more precise and morally enriched vocabulary to talk about limited force and the responsibilities its use entails.

10. War and intervention

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Frowe
Keyword(s):  
War On Terror ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
World War ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
The World ◽  
Just War Tradition

This chapter examines the main theoretical approaches to war and the circumstances under which it is permissible to wage war. War is one of the most morally difficult, and morally pressing, aspects of human existence. It nearly always involves killing and maiming on a vast scale. Despite its destructive nature, and despite the rise of rights talk on the international stage and the spread of democracy across large parts of the world, war persists. The chapter first considers the just war tradition and alternatives to just war theory before discussing two theoretical approaches to the ethics of war: collectivism and individualism. It also explores three principles that govern the fighting of war: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A case study on Afghanistan and the ‘war on terror’ is presented, along with Key Thinkers boxes featuring Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan.

The Ethics of War and the Concept of War in India and Europe

Numen ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torkel Brekke
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Just War ◽  
Early Modern Europe ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Literary Traditions ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Just War Tradition ◽  
Modern Europe ◽  
Ethical Systems

AbstractThe European just war tradition makes a distinction between matters of just resort to war (jus ad bellum) and matters of just means in war (jus in bello). If one compares the just war tradition with ethical systems of other cultures, one is struck by the European concern about jus ad bellum and the lack of interest in the same in other traditions. I compare the ethics of war in two important literary traditions of classical Hinduism with the European just war tradition. Our problem: Why were Europeans so interested in matters of jus ad bellum (in particular the principle of right authority) and why did Hindu writers take so little interest in the same questions? I suggest the following answer. In medieval and early modern Europe there was great interest in jus ad bellum because Europeans had a concept of war that made two important distinctions. The European concept of war distinguished, firstly, war against external enemies from violence against internal enemies and, secondly, public from private violence. Some important studies of the ethics of war have asserted that these two distinctions are universal. I argue, on the contrary, that these two distinctions are unique to Europe. Hindu writers had a fundamentally different concept of war. They did not make the same distinctions. I argue that this conceptual difference explains why Europeans were so concerned about jus ad bellum while Indians were not.

Imagining jus post vim

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-129
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Regime Change ◽  
Just War ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
War Crimes Trials

Standard accounts of just war follow a chronological path: deliberating whether to go to war (jus ad bellum), considering what can be done in war (jus in bello), and determining the responsibilities after war’s end (jus post bellum). This chapter challenges the chronological timeline by arguing that understanding jus post vim, or the justice after limited force, is paramount to discerning the just and unjust uses of limited force. Placing the emphasis on the post-force environment first shifts the focus onto the achievable ends, which then recalibrates the goals, and, by consequence, the means employed to achieve them. The chapter thus begins by distinguishing between jus post bellum and jus post vim, with one of the main differences being that the latter is necessarily a form of truncated victory. This circumscribed nature of victory has ethical implications insofar as many of the lofty goals sometimes associated with jus post bellum (rehabilitation, regime change, war crimes trials, etc.) are not feasible objectives of using limited force. Drawing on the classical just war doctrine’s emphasis on the pursuit of order and justice, the chapter identifies the re-establishment and containment principles as markers of moral truncated victory and the committed pursuit of long-term peace. These jus post vim principles reflect the heavy moral lifting that diplomatic measures play in the pursuit of peace once truncated victory is achieved. The chapter concludes by linking jus post vim to conciliation, inviting deeper engagement with non-Western peace practices and traditions.

The responsibilities of victory: Jus Post Bellum and the Just War

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEX J. BELLAMY
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
Future Thinking ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Moral Requirements ◽  
Moral Questions

AbstractRecent years have seen a growing interest in questions about justice after war (jus post bellum), fuelled in large part by moral questions about coalition operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a result, it has become common to argue that jus post bellum is a third strand of Just War thinking. This article evaluates this position. It argues that that there are broadly two ways of understanding moral requirements after war: a minimalist position which holds that moral principles derived largely from jus ad bellum and jus in bello concerns should constrain what victors are entitled to do after war and a maximalist position which holds that victors acquire additional responsibilities that are grounded more in liberalism and international law than in Just War thinking. Finding problems with both approaches, the article argues that it is premature to include jus post bellum as a third element of Just War thinking and concludes by setting out six principles to guide future thinking in this area.

The Historical Just War Tradition

2018 ◽  
pp. 208-220
Author(s):  
Cian O'Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Ancient Rome ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Just Cause ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Just War Tradition ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Right Intention ◽  
Proper Authority

In what circumstances, if any, would the recourse to war be justified? What restraints should be binding on any such use of force? The pre-eminent framework for addressing these questions is the just war tradition. Boasting a history that can be traced back to ancient Rome, this corpus has been distilled over time into a set of principles that bear on two poles, the jus ad bellum, the norms that govern the resort to war, and the jus in bello, the constraints binding on its prosecution. Scholars dispute the composition of these poles, but all concur that the former turns on “just cause,” “proper authority,” and “right intention,” while the latter includes “proportionality” and “discrimination.” This chapter discusses the prizes and pitfalls that attend the study of the ethics of war in light of the historical just war tradition.

scholarly journals On the Duty to Reconstruct After War: Who is responsible for jus post bellum?

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-430
Author(s):  
Lonneke Peperkamp
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Moral Compass ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Post War ◽  
Specific Duty

Many argue that the problems encountered in and after today’s armed conflicts demonstrate the need for norms to govern the aftermath of war. Therefore, jus post bellum is welcomed as a ‘new’ branch of just war theory, complementing the theory’s two traditional branches—jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus post bellum is meant to function as moral compass, offering the needed guidance in the aftermath of war. While many agree on the importance of a third branch, an important question is often overlooked: After war, how should we distribute post war duties? This question deserves more attention, because uncertainty about specific duty bearers might lead to a situation in which no one will properly acquit these duties, and the critique could be raised that jus post bellum is in fact merely empty rhetoric. Two specific questions need answering. First: Which conditions can serve as the foundation for post war duties? Second: How to weigh these conditions when they clash or when they point to different actors? This article directly addresses the foundation for responsibility after war, using David Miller’s and H.L.A. Hart’s theories on responsibility, with an eye to developing a system for assigning post war duties in concrete situations. Only with such a system in place is there a realistic prospect that jus post bellum functions as a useful tool in the creation of a just and stable peace.

Robots in Warfare and the Occultation of the Existential Nature of Violence

2015 ◽  
pp. 225-238
Author(s):  
Rick Searle
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Fundamental Characteristic ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Modern War

We are at the cusp of a revolution in the development of autonomous weapons, yet current arguments both for and against such weapons are insufficient to the task at hand. In the context of Just war theory, arguments for and against the use of autonomous weapons focus on Jus in bello and in doing so miss addressing the implications of these weapons for the two other aspects of that theory- Jus ad bellum and Jus post bellum. This paper argues that fully autonomous weapons would likely undermine adherence to the Jus ad bellum and Jus post bellum prescriptions of Just war theory, but remote controlled weapons, if designed with ethical concerns in mind, might improve adherence to all of the theory's prescriptions compared to war as currently waged from a distance, as well as help to undo the occlusion of violence which has been a fundamental characteristic of all forms of modern war.

War’s Aftermath and the Ethics of War

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Fabre
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Full Account ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Partial Agreement ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Family ◽  
The One

This chapter offers an account of the role and place of jus post bellum within just war theory and highlights avenues of inquiry on the aftermath of war that have been largely ignored. The author discusses recent arguments to the effect that jus ad bellum and jus in bello exhaust just war theory and that jus post bellum, far from being a key member of the family, in fact does much better as an outsider. The author claims, on the contrary, that there is ample space for jus post bellum within just war theory; in partial agreement with those arguments, however, the author agrees that a full account of the ethics of war’s aftermath must also draw on other fields of normative inquiry and fleshes out in greater details connections and disconnections between jus post bellum on the one hand and the other two jura on the other.

Robots in Warfare and the Occultation of the Existential Nature of Violence

2019 ◽  
pp. 487-500
Author(s):  
Rick Searle
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Fundamental Characteristic ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Autonomous Weapons ◽  
Modern War

We are at the cusp of a revolution in the development of autonomous weapons, yet current arguments both for and against such weapons are insufficient to the task at hand. In the context of Just war theory, arguments for and against the use of autonomous weapons focus on Jus in bello and in doing so miss addressing the implications of these weapons for the two other aspects of that theory- Jus ad bellum and Jus post bellum. This paper argues that fully autonomous weapons would likely undermine adherence to the Jus ad bellum and Jus post bellum prescriptions of Just war theory, but remote controlled weapons, if designed with ethical concerns in mind, might improve adherence to all of the theory's prescriptions compared to war as currently waged from a distance, as well as help to undo the occlusion of violence which has been a fundamental characteristic of all forms of modern war.

13. War and Intervention

2019 ◽  
pp. 263-283
Author(s):  
Helen Frowe
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War Literature ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Alternative Approaches ◽  
Moral Rules

This chapter assesses war and intervention. Just war theorists share two beliefs: that wars can, at least in theory, sometimes be just, and that the fighting of war is governed by moral rules. Just war theory is usually divided into jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Jus ad bellum (justice prior to war) sets the conditions under which it is just to declare war. Jus in bello (justice during the war) sets the ‘rules of engagement’, governing the conduct of combatants during a conflict. Jus post bellum (justice after war) deals with topics like war reparations and punishment of aggression and had, until recently, received comparatively little attention in the just war literature. Meanwhile, pacifism and realism offer alternative approaches to the ethics of war.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document