scholarly journals Kant on just war and international order

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-127
Author(s):  
Nenad Milicic
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Just War ◽  
Order Theory ◽  
International Order ◽  
Model Solutions ◽  
Misleading Interpretation ◽  
Cosmopolitan Democracy

Kant?s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant?s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant?s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant?s and his critics? theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents? arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant?s position are compared and analysed.

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.

Kant’s Rejection of Just War: International Order between Democratic Constitutionalism and Revolutionary Violence

2021 ◽  
pp. 129-144
Author(s):  
Oliver Eberl
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
New Era ◽  
Early Modernity ◽  
Modern War ◽  
War Discourse

Following up on Tischer’s, Becker Lorca’s and Teschke’s observations on early modern war discourse, Oliver Eberl in this chapter elaborates Immanuel Kant’s critique of the justification of the use of force in early modernity which revolutionized the thinking on international order. Kant condemned the justification of the use of force as just war since this would perpetuate the state of nature which the states still found themselves in. Kant does not link directly theory and practice but rather formulates his theory on the background of revolutionary change, which in his view opens up the possibility of a completely new approach to international order. However, in unfolding his theory, Kant had to take into consideration its possible practical consequences in the context of an unstable international constellation of power. Furthermore, he had to accommodate the practice of the French republic to identify its opponents as ‘unjust enemies’, thereby contradicting the envisaged role of the revolution as the nucleus of the new era of peace envisioned by Kant.

scholarly journals Last war or a war to make the world safe for democracy: Violence and right in Hannah Arendt

2006 ◽  
pp. 79-95
Author(s):  
Petar Bojanic
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Hannah Arendt ◽  
Just War ◽  
Carl Schmitt ◽  
Revolutionary Violence ◽  
The World ◽  
Great Tradition ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Made In

Paraphrased within the title of this text is a note Hannah Arendt made in August 1952. After reading Carl Schmitt?s Nomos der Erde, Arendt tries to confront Schmitt?s idea of a just war. In the text I attempt to reconstruct Arendt?s readings of differing political philosophy texts within the context of her thinking concerning the relationship between violence and power, force and law. Arendt?s refusal to accept the existence of violence which can "conquer" freedom and "create" right and democracy, brings contradiction to the great tradition of the followers of Marx, to whom Arendt undoubtedly belongs: how is and is revolutionary violence even possible and does violence as resistance to injustice bring justice?.

The duty to oppose violence: humanitarian intervention as a question for political philosophy

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 1045-1067 ◽  
Author(s):  
BJORN GOMES
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
International Order ◽  
Common Morality ◽  
Conceptual Relationship

AbstractAlthough the non-intervention rule is often defended as a guarantee of international order, rigid adherence to it cannot be morally justified when governments commit or permit atrocities within their territory. In such cases, intervention is permissible and may even be obligatory. Drawing on the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, and to a lesser extent Hegel, this article examines the grounds of the argument for humanitarian intervention, demonstrating that intervention is in principle not only permissible but obligatory when considered philosophically. Therightto intervene can be grounded on common morality, the protection of sovereignty and the coerciveness of justice. Thedutyto intervene rests on a respect for humanity and the conceptual relationship between rights and duties. Considering these two lines of argument shows that humanitarian intervention can be conceived as a duty that states can be reasonably required to perform.

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.

scholarly journals Just War and Just Battle: North Korea’s Attack against the ROKS Cheonan and its Unexplored Discourse of an Unjustified Military Action

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-25
Author(s):  
Kil Joo Ban
Keyword(s):  
North Korea ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
International Order ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Grand Theory ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Theory Of War ◽  
Limited Warfare ◽  
Post War

In March 2010, a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo against the South Korean ship Cheonan, which resulted in the deaths of 46 sailors. Is its surprise attack justified? The academic examination has rarely been made over whether North Korea’s use of military force is justified in this battle. As the just war theory to date has dealt mostly with major wars, it also can guide us to judge whether this limited warfare is just or not. The just war principles are composed of three axes: before, in and after wars. First, North Korea’s provocation had neither right cause nor right intension because it attacked the Cheonan preventively, not preemptively, and was intended to achieve its domestic objective, the stable succession of the Kim regime. Second, North Korea also did not observe in-war principles in the sense that it attacked and sank the Cheonan unproportionally to maximize the effectiveness of revenge. Third, North Korea was not interested in post-battle settlements but intended to aggravate tensions in the region, which is not compliant with post-war principles. The examination sheds some light on the need to expand the scope of just war principles from war to limited warfare and battles particularly in the sense that it helps restrain unethical warfare and maintain the rules-based international order. This expansion also will contribute to not only the richness of the just war theory but also further leading it to evolve into a grand theory of war.

The Adventures of Telemachus (selections)

Fénelon ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 72-107
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Just War ◽  
Alternative Form ◽  
Louis Xiv ◽  
Principal Source

Telemachus, first published in 1699, was the centerpiece of Fénelon’s education for Burgundy. Its initial publication is said to be owed to the theft of the manuscript by an unfaithful copyist. But it soon became a publishing phenomenon and a principal source of Fénelon’s enduring fame. For students of moral and political philosophy, it is important not only for its allegorical critique of the absolutism of Louis XIV, but also for its articulation of a vision of an alternative form of civic flourishing and its innovative proposals on themes ranging from free trade and taxation, international relations and just war, and the virtues of statesmen and ministers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document