Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 7

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Social Critique ◽  
Strict Compliance ◽  
Contemporary Work ◽  
Political Epistemology ◽  
Science Departments

This is the seventh volume of Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy. Since its revival in the 1970s political philosophy has been a vibrant field in philosophy, one that intersects with jurisprudence, normative economics, political theory in political science departments, and just war theory. OSPP aims to publish some of the best contemporary work in political philosophy and these closely related subfields. The chapters in this volume address a range of central topics and represent cutting-edge work in the field: the philosophy of work; political epistemology and social critique; the duty to save; politics, truth, and respect; perfectionist duties; public reason; autonomy-based arguments for democracy; and strict compliance.

Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 5

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Cutting Edge ◽  
Normative Economics ◽  
Contemporary Work ◽  
Science Departments

This is the fifth volume of Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy. Since its revival in the 1970s political philosophy has been a vibrant field in philosophy, one that intersects with jurisprudence, normative economics, political theory in political science departments, and just war theory. OSPP aims to publish some of the best contemporary work in political philosophy and these closely related subfields. The chapters in this volume address a range of central topics and represent cutting-edge work in the field. They are grouped into two main themes: power and legitimacy; and political, legal, and moral relations.

7. St Augustine

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Bethke Elshtain
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Just War ◽  
Human Person ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
The World ◽  
Moral Orientations ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines Augustine of Hippo's political thought. After providing a brief biography of St Augustine, it considers the fate of his texts within the world of academic political theory and the general suspicion of ‘religious’ thinkers within that world. It then analyses Augustine's understanding of the human person as a bundle of complex desires and emotions as well as the implications of his claim that human sociality is a given and goes all the way down. It also explores Augustine's arguments regarding the interplay of caritas and cupiditas in the moral orientations of persons and of cultures. Finally, it describes Augustine's reflections on the themes of war and peace, locating him as the father of the tradition of ‘just war’ theory.

War in Political Philosophy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Frowe
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Moral Status ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Ordinary Life ◽  
Unconventional Warfare ◽  
Noncombatant Immunity ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Just War Tradition ◽  
Changing Attitudes

We can distinguish between three moral approaches to war: pacifism, realism, and just war theory. There are various theoretical approaches to war within the just war tradition. One of the central disputes between these approaches concerns whether war is morally exceptional (as held by exceptionalists), or morally continuous with ordinary life (as held by reductive individualists). There are also significant debates concerning key substantive issues in the ethics of war, such as reductivist challenges to the thesis that combatants fighting an unjust war are the moral equals of those fighting a just war, and the challenge to reductivism that it undermines the principle of noncombatant immunity. There are also changing attitudes to wars of humanitarian intervention. One under-explored challenge to the permissibility of such wars lies in the better outcomes of alternative ways of alleviating suffering. The notion of unconventional warfare has also come to recent prominence, not least with respect to the moral status of human shields.

Just War Theory in Times of Individual Rights

2018 ◽  
pp. 220-232
Author(s):  
Janina Dill
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
First Century ◽  
The Political ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
International Political Theory ◽  
Radical Revision

Just war theory (JWT) has undergone a radical revision over the last two decades. This chapter discusses the implications of this reformulation for the role of JWT in International Political Theory (IPT) and for JWT’s strategic usefulness. Revisionists’ consistent prioritization of individual rights means JWT now follows the strictures of justified violence according to contemporary IPT. At the same time, the collective nature of war makes it impossible for anyone but the omniscient attacker to properly protect individual rights and thus to directly implement revisionist prescriptions. I argue that revisionism is strategically relevant not in spite of, but because of this lack of practicability on the battlefield. It highlights the impossibility of waging war in accordance with widespread expectations of moral appropriateness, which largely follow the strictures of justified violence according to contemporary IPT. This is a crucial limitation to the political utility of force in twenty-first-century international relations.

Preemptive Strikes—Israel and Iran

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Meisels
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Nuclear Program ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Preventive War ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Us ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

This essay looks at the contemporary just war theory literature on preventive war that has emerged largely in reaction to the US invasion of Iraq. Recent sanctions on Iran and the debate over its nuclear program now suggest the usefulness of a forward looking perspective on preventive strikes, rather than the retroactive analyses offered thus far primarily with reference to Iraq. With Iran closely in mind, I address the various arguments for and against preventive war indicating throughout that the various principled objections to early military action can be overcome in this case. Many of the crucial concrete questions regarding costs and benefits need to be settled in practice, rather than in the realm of political theory. Ultimately, the discussion suggests that Iran is a legitimate candidate for early military action aimed to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. I argue that in principle, subject to credible intelligence information and requirements of proportionality, a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran will be justifiable, both morally and legally, as self-defense.

The Ethics of Care

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Hel
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Care Ethics ◽  
Ethics Of Care ◽  
Alternative View ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Global Problems

The focus of normative political theory in recent decades has been overwhelmingly on distributive justice. Developed for institutions within national societies, questions of justice and fairness have also dominated consideration of the global problems that morality ought to address. For matters of war and peace, just war theory has been central; for other issues, distributive justice. This “justice-dominated discourse,” greatly influenced by the work of John Rawls, is now being challenged by the alternative outlook of the ethics of care. Care ethics began to be developed in the last quarter of the twentieth century by feminist moral and political theorists, and its development continues. This chapter looks at this alternative view and some of its implications.

Revisionist Just War Theory and the Concept of War Crimes

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALEJANDRO CHEHTMAN
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Legal Punishment

AbstractUnder contemporary international law, war crimes are conceived as particularly serious violations of the laws of armed conflict. Mere participation of rank-and-file soldiers in an unjust or unlawful war is generally not considered to warrant legal punishment. This position is based on the principle of equality between belligerents. During the last 20 years, this principle has been challenged by the so-called revisionist position in just war theory, as well as by certain scholars in international law. According to them, unjust or unlawful participants in armed conflict perpetrate serious wrongs. This article argues that their conduct is not only morally wrongful, but also that it should be criminalized under certain circumstances. On the basis of empirical research on cognitive biases, and on one of the leading accounts of legitimate authority in political philosophy, it argues that participation in war warrants criminalization only when the war is knowingly or manifestly unlawful. Furthermore, it claims that this position is not only sound at the level of deep moral principles, but that in fact it provides a persuasive reinterpretation of existing international law.

Intending war rightly: Right intentions, public intentions, and consent

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 634-653
Author(s):  
Eric Grynaviski
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
History Of Political Thought ◽  
Political Issue ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Normative Status

AbstractThis article defends the normative status of the right intentions requirement in just war theory. Before we turn to many ethical questions about a conflict – whether there was just cause or whether a war was fought well – we often begin by asking whether the war was rightly intended. Particularly in the contemporary world, where questions of humanitarian intentions and their place in international law is an important political issue, clarifying what we mean by right intentions and showing why they matter is politically very important. Unfortunately, despite the importance of right intentions in the history of political thought, recent discussions give the concept mixed attention, leaving it obscure and difficult to apply. The first section reviews four traditional accounts, showing their underlying (and important) differences and respective weaknesses. The second section of the article argues that these models fail because they are rooted in private instead of public reason. A model of right intentions as public intentions is described and justified, where an intention is only right when the motives that underlie it can be endorsed by the group it is supposed to aid, and the opportunities it provides that group are endorsable by the intervener.

The bloodstained spear: public reason and declarations of war

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Grynaviski
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Politics Of Recognition ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Moral Case ◽  
The Right ◽  
Moral Demands

States rarely declare war. For many international law scholars, just war theorists, and moral philosophers, the declaration of war is a moribund tradition that serves no important purpose. When declarations of war are defended, the argument is situated in the war powers debate about executive authority. In contrast, I argue that declaring war – making conditional and reasoned moral demands – continues to be an important requirement for just wars. States should declare war because states should make explicit (formal) moral demands before fighting. Declaring war is procedurally important because it ensures that a state makes a formal moral case, showing respect to innocent third parties whose interests are affected and providing targets the right to confront their accusers and hear evidence. While not a panacea, requiring declarations is a significant improvement on the ad hoc politics of wartime justification that plagues wars such as Iraq. Further, declarations, as ultimatums, are the only reasonable interpretation of the ‘last resort’ requirement in just war theory. A final section extends the argument to contemporary wars against non-state actors, showing that a politics of recognition underlying declarations of war may prove especially fruitful today.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document