Politics, Ethics, and History in Just War

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-44
Author(s):  
Anthony F Lang
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Just War ◽  
Michael Walzer ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
Just War Tradition

The just war tradition can be used to ‘justify’ violence rather than limit it. If the tradition is understood as essentially a political rather than an ethical theory, one that requires consideration of questions about authority and justice as much as intentionality and proportionality, this enabling function might be limited. One important way to spell out the politics involved in the just war tradition is to focus on history and the function of historical examples drawn upon by theorists who write on war and peace. In this chapter, Anthony F Lang, Jr discusses how three theorists of just war—Hugo Grotius, Michael Walzer, and Cécile Fabre—use history in their evaluative work. Lang, Jr confronts these texts with postcolonial and feminist approaches as alternative ways to employ history in passing judgments on the use of collective force.

scholarly journals Grotius on Reprisal

Grotiana ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 330-348
Author(s):  
Randall Lesaffer
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
Just War Doctrine ◽  
Novel Reading

Abstract In neither of his two major forays into the laws of war and peace – De iure praedae or De iure belli ac pacis – did Hugo Grotius discuss the legal institutions of reprisal – whether special or general – or privateering in their own right. His profoundly novel reading of the just war doctrine in the context of his theory of natural rights, however, gave powerful legitimisation to the practices of special reprisals, as well as of privateering in times of war and of peace.

Gender, Just War, and the Ethics of War and Peace

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
Moral Realism ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Feminist Ethics ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Just War Tradition

The just war tradition is the most dominant framework for analyzing the morality of war. Just war theory is being challenged by proponents of two philosophical views: realism, which considers moral questions about war to be irrelevant, and pacifism, which rejects the idea that war can ever be moral. Realism and pacifism offer a useful starting point for thinking about the ethics of war and peace. Feminists have been engaged with the just war tradition, mainly by exposing the gendered biases of just war attempts to restrain and regulate war and studying the role that war and its regulation plays in defining masculinity. In particular, feminists claim that the two rules of just war, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, discriminate against women. In regard to contemporary warfare, such as post-Cold War humanitarian interventions and the War on Terror, feminists have questioned the appropriateness of just war concepts to deal with the specific ethical challenges that these conflicts produce. Instead of abstract moral reasoning, which they critique as being linked to the masculine ideals of autonomy and rationality, many feminist argue for certain varieties of an ethics of care. Further research is needed to elaborate the basis of an ethical response to violence that builds on philosophical work on feminist ethics. Key areas for future investigation include asking hard questions about whom we may kill, and how certain people become killable in war while others remain protected.

scholarly journals Blessed [Are] the Peacemakers... Grotius on the Just War and Christian Pacifism

Grotiana ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthijs De Blois
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
The Political ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
The Reformation ◽  
Central Tenet ◽  
Magnum Opus ◽  
Proper Interpretation

AbstractIn The Law of War and Peace Grotius needs many more pages for the theological arguments in the debate on war and peace than for the arguments derived from natural law and international law. Apparently the controversy within Christendom on the justifiability of warfare was one of the most important issues to be addressed in his magnum opus. The general discussion in his days was about the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, the authority of which was accepted by all participants. This contribution focuses on the position of Hugo Grotius in this debate, confronting his ideas with the biblical arguments of those who (almost) completely rejected warfare, more in particular Erasmus and the Anabaptist branch of the Reformation. Grotius rejected the arguments in favour of Christian pacifism, which was to a considerable degree defended by Erasmus and which formed a central tenet of the Anabaptists. The latter's apolitical stand was not shared by Grotius or by Erasmus who were both albeit to different degrees involved in the political debate and practice in the field of war and peace.

The Disease of Victory

Victory ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 126-144
Author(s):  
Cian O'Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Michael Walzer ◽  
Jeff Mcmahan ◽  
Just War Tradition

The final problem just war theorists perceive with victory reflects the belief that to speak about war in terms of victory is to court an escalatory logic that undercuts the spirit of moderation that the just war tradition champions. The pursuit of victory inclines armies to set the rules aside and fight in an unrestrained manner. Turning this concern on its head, this chapter contends that while it is true that the idiom of victory tempts an escalatory logic, so too does the idea of just war. This is demonstrated by the writings of two leading contemporary just war theorists: Michael Walzer and Jeff McMahan. The conclusion arising from this is not necessarily that we should back away from speaking about either victory or just war. It is, however, a reminder of both what is staked when we do engage them, and why they must always be approached with circumspection.

Interlinking the Domestic with the International: Carl Schmitt on Democracy and International Relations

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPH BURCHARD
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Weimar Republic ◽  
Just War ◽  
State System ◽  
Carl Schmitt ◽  
The Political ◽  
Just War Tradition

Carl Schmitt's Der Nomos der Erde allows us to rethink his interlinked proposals for the organization of the Weimar Republic, namely his theory of ‘democratic dictatorship’ and the ‘concept of the political’. Connecting the domestic homogeneity of an empowered people with the pluralism of the Westphalian state system, Schmitt seeks to humanize war; he objects to the renaissance of the ‘just war’ tradition, which is premised on a discriminating concept of war. Schmitt's objections are valid today, yet their Eurocentric foundations are also partially outdated. We are thus to argue with Schmitt against Schmitt to reflect on possibilities for the humanization of war.

Shakespeare and the Just War Tradition, by Paola Pugliatti

2012 ◽  
Vol 127 (527) ◽  
pp. 976-978
Author(s):  
C. S. L. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Tradition
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document