Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

2021 ◽  
pp. 175508822110347
Author(s):  
Lonneke Peperkamp
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Alternative Concept ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
As If

Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue (a) that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and (b) that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way.

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.

Levinas and the Ethics of War and Peace

2018 ◽  
pp. 566-586
Author(s):  
Joshua Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Secondary Literature ◽  
Ethics Of War

This essay considers the role of war in Levinas’s philosophy and his philosophy’s place in the secondary literature on the ethics of war. It is argued that his understanding of war most closely matches just war theory, although it bears similarities as well to pacifist fears about the depersonalization that occurs in war. These comparisons are used to raise concerns about both Levinas’s philosophy and just war theory. Reading just war theory through the lens of his philosophy exposes the inability of just war theory to settle pacifist fears about wartime depersonalization. Conversely, reading Levinas through the lens of this debate reinforces the worry that there may be an unbridgeable gap between ethics and justice in his philosophy.

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.

Moral Responsibilities and the Conflicting Demands ofJus Post Bellum

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Evans
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Conflict Situation ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
Moral Responsibilities ◽  
Just Peace ◽  
As If

Recently, strong arguments have been offered for the inclusion ofjus post bellumin just war theory. If this addition is indeed justified, it is plain that, due to the variety in types of post-conflict situation, the content ofjus post bellumwill necessarily vary. One instance when it looks as if it should become “extended” in its scope, ranging well beyond (for example) issues of “just peace terms,” is when occupation of a defeated enemy is necessary. In this situation, this article argues that an engagement byjus post bellumwith the morality of post-conflict reconstruction is unavoidable. However, the resulting extension ofjus post bellum's stipulations threatens to generate conflict with another tenet that it would surely wish to endorse with respect to “just occupation,” namely, that sovereignty or self-determination should be restored to the occupied people as soon as is reasonably possible. Hence, the action-guiding objective of the theory could become significantly problematized. The article concludes by considering whether this problem supports the claim that the addition ofjus post bellumto just war theory is actually more problematic than its supporters have realized.

scholarly journals Just war theory in Njegos’s works

2021 ◽  
pp. 361-375
Author(s):  
Dragan Stanar
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Just War ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Context Specific

Modern just war theory represents more of a tradition of thoughts on ethical issues of war than a theory per se. However, philosophical attitudes on war coming from authors from non-western cultures, including Serbian culture, are often left outside of this tradition. Author aims to demonstrate that there are clear ideas on ethical attributes of war and warring in Njegos?s work. By analyzing Njegos?s views expressed in his most significant works, through the prism of criteria of the classical elements of the modern just war theory (Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello), author demonstrates the existence of Serbian tradition of thought on ethics of war and warring. In this way, modern just war theory is supplemented and enriched with the Serbian historical perspective on justness of war and in war. Simultaneously, author highlights the challenges and perils of interpretation of philosophical ideas without considering the historical context, specific political-culturological circumstances and personality of the idea author. This is of a particular contemporary relevance, as misinterpretations of Njegos?s ideas on war and justice in war are often used to further fuel national antagonisms and destabilize the region.

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.

War

Philosophy ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth Lazar ◽  
Jonathan Parry
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Basic Problem ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Third

Wars are large-scale armed conflicts between two or more organized groups. The basic problem of warfare is that it involves inflicting death and suffering on people, who, in ordinary circumstances, would have fundamental rights that protect them against being treated in these ways. Of course, everyone recognizes that wars are problematic in other respects: they corrupt and destroy institutions and relationships, they waste vast sums of wealth that could be used to remedy entrenched vulnerability, and they cause irreversible and massive damage to the natural environment. These are by no means negligible costs. And yet when considering the ethics of war, most start with the killing and the suffering, because if the killing cannot be justified, then the rest is irrelevant: our only choice is to affirm pacifism. However, justifying the killing is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of justifying wars as a whole. There remain important questions to be asked about how and why the killing may be done. While the permissibility of killing per se provides the philosophical foundations of any theory of just war, the superstructure requires attention to specific questions governing the practice of warfare. In particular, for what reasons may conflict be permissibly initiated? How can we fight permissibly? How can we end wars, and deal with their aftermath, permissibly? The first two—justified resort and justified conduct—correspond to jus ad bellum and jus in bello in historical just war theory. The third is a more novel, less-discussed contribution, coined as jus post bellum by recent scholars. Only a war in which the killing is justified, and which is started, fought, and ended justifiably, can properly be called a just war.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document